Nigeria’s Tobi Amusan is facing a barrage of questions after she destroyed the 100 meters hurdles world record at the World Championships in Eugene, Oregon.
Amusan recorded a stunning time of 12.12 seconds in her semi-final run, beating the previous women’s world record set by Kendra Harrison by 0.08 seconds and shattered her old personal best by almost 0.3 seconds.
Amusan then broke this time in the final, running a 12.06 – though this didn’t count towards the record books as it was adjudged as being wind-assisted.
It was Nigeria’s first-ever gold medal at the World Championships.
So unexpected was her time that sprint legend Michael Johnson, who was performing commentary duties at the event, wondered aloud if the timing system at the event had malfunctioned, especially given that 12 of the 24 runners across three semi-finals set new personal bests on their runs.
“I don’t believe 100h times are correct. World record broken by .08! 12 PBs set. 5 National records set. And Cindy Sember quote after her PB/NR ‘I throughly I was running slow!’ All athletes looked shocked,” Johnson wrote on Twitter.
“Heat 2 we were first shown winning time of 12.53. Few seconds later it shows 12.43. Rounding down by .01 is normal. .10 is not.”
A deeper inquiry, though, has led to claims that the shoes worn by Amusan might be the answer to questions posed by Johnson and others.
It emerged afterwards that she was wearing Adidas Adizero Avanti shoes – rather than traditional track spikes – athletic equipment which was designed for long-distance runners.
It was a decision made, she said, because these shoes have softer soles and helped to avoid relapses of plantar fasciitis which she was diagnosed with earlier this year – a type of injury which affects the soles of one’s feet.
Adidas promoted the apparel as “like hitting fast-forward” and that they “provide a snappy, propulsive ride with high traction and reduce fatigue, so you finish 5km and 10km races with a kick”.
There is no allegation of illegality in Amusan’s use of the shoes, given that they fall within the accepted standards used in such events.
“My abilities are not centered around spikes,” said Amusan, noting the controversy.
“I had patella fasciitis at the beginning of the season so that set me back for a while,” Amusan added.
“I spoke to Adidas and requested if I could get spikes with a softer sole. They recommended a lot of stuff and I feel comfortable in [the shoes], so I was using them basically the entire time.
“Speed-wise, I feel like I needed to work on my speed. I did 100m at the start of the season so that had a huge factor to come to play in the hurdles and I knew once I get the technical part out, I’d be fine.
The spikes do seem to have an impact in hurdles events. Sydney McLaughlin, wearing similar shoes produced by a different footwear brand, broke the 400m hurdles world record earlier in the same week.
READ MORE:
Shoe wars: Kenyan athlete SMASHES half-marathon record as ARMS RACE between sneaker brands takes center stage
Poland’s military should be large and strong enough for its mere existence to deter “aggressors”, the defense minister says
Poland wants to create the most powerful ground forces among the European members of NATO, the country’s defense minister has said. Mariusz Blaszczak made the remarks in an interview with Sieci magazine, excerpts of which were published on Sunday.
The official said he views Russia, as well as its ally Belarus, as potential adversaries that should be deterred with a powerful military.
“We are on the frontline, we border Russia in the north, and de-facto, in military terms, from the side of Belarus,” Blaszczak said, referring to Poland’s border with Russia’s Kaliningrad Region.
Poland’s ambitious military plans would put it in competition with Germany, as earlier this year Chancellor Olaf Scholz promised to make the Bundeswehr the “biggest conventional army” among European NATO states.
“The Polish Army must be so numerous and so strong that its very existence will scare the aggressor away. The Kremlin rulers do not hit the strong – when they see weakness, they attack. Both in terms of artillery and tanks, there will ultimately be no stronger country in Europe [than Poland],” the minister claimed.
Blaszczak said that to protect itself from high-precision strikes – a capability Moscow has demonstrated during the Ukraine conflict – Poland has ordered US-made Patriot anti-aircraft systems, which are expected to be delivered this year. Warsaw will also procure an unspecified anti-aircraft system “identical” to British Sky Saber, the minister added without elaborating.
Poland is currently trying to replenish its weapon stockpiles after it transferred over 200 Soviet-era T-72 tanks to Ukraine for use in the conflict with Russia. Last week, Blaszczak announced the purchase of some 116 used M1 Abrams main battle tanks from the US, on top of a separate deal to procure 250 new tanks.
Warsaw initially sought to replenish its stocks with German Leopard 2 tanks, but the expected deal failed to materialize, with Polish President Andrzej Duda accusing Berlin of breaking its promise to replace Polish weaponry.
The outcome of the Osun governorship election held last weekend where the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, Senator Ademola Adeleke was declared winner is still a big shock to many Nigerians, especially chieftains of the All Progressives Congress (APC), living outside the state.
However, to the party faithful residing in the state, the defeat had been foretold and was described as a self-inflicted injury.
In the election described by observers as peaceful, free and fair, the incumbent governor and candidate of the APC, Gboyega Oyetola was defeated by Adeleke, who scored 403,371votes to emerge as the governor-elect of the state. Oyetola polled 375,027 votes. Action Democratic Party (ADP) candidate, Kehinde Atanda finished a distant third with 10,104 votes.
The PDP candidate had his first shot at Osun Government House in 2018 in an election that was declared inconclusive, necessitating a controversial supplementary election in seven polling units, after which Adeleke was defeated by 482 votes. But Adeleke held on to his structure and returned to defeat the incumbent governor in 17 local councils while APC won in 13.
The fall of APC in Osun State has kept tongues wagging as to how and why the party could not maintain its hold on the state with most members blaming the unresolved internal crisis among its leaders. It is not a secret that there is no love lost between Oyetola and former governor of the state and Minister of Interior, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola. Various efforts by the presidential candidate of the party, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Chief Bisi Akande to resolve the crisis were unsuccessful. At some point, the matter created a gulf between Tinubu and Aregbesola, who warned the National Leader of the party to “stop playing God.”
Some members of the ruling party who spoke on condition of anonymity blamed their defeat on the lackadaisical attitude of President Muhammadu Buhari, whom they said refused to intervene directly between Aregbesola and Oyetola after the efforts of Chief Bisi Akande and Tinubu failed to yield result.
The war of attrition between the duo polarised the party. Aregbesola and his supporters had accused Oyetola of reversing most of the policies of his predecessor in office in a manner that cast aspersion on the integrity of the Minister. But the governor, who thought he had to listen to the people’s outcry, did not regret reversing some policies, including the same school uniform for all secondary school students, taking over of all legacy schools by the government, half salaries for workers and other policies that had made Aregbesola unpopular before the end of his tenure.
In reacting to Oyetola’s decisions, Aregbesola’s group, The Osun Progressives (TOP), opposed the governor’s second-term ambition. They sponsored another aspirant, a former Secretary to the State Government, Moshood Adeoti to contest in a parallel primary organised by Aregbesola’s faction of the APC. Oyetola secured the ticket of the main faction and TOP members approached the court seeking to nullify his candidature and recognise the primary election conducted by its faction. But their hopes were dashed on the eve of the election by the judgment of the Appeal Court, which affirmed Oyetola as the party’s candidate.
APC sources disclosed that most members of TOP campaigned and voted for the PDP governorship candidate. “It is unfortunate that it was APC members that worked against the party. We saw them sharing money with people to support Adeleke. We know ourselves, it is no secret, that they gave the victory to Adeleke and PDP.”
It was also gathered that workers in the state had agreed not to vote for Oyetola despite acknowledging he performed better than Aregbesola in terms of welfare and payment of salaries and allowances as and when due. To the workers, most second term governors underperform and do not care about workers welfare.
Some of them who spoke to The Guardian said Aregbesola performed creditably well during his first term in office but suddenly introduced many anti-workers policies in his second term.
One of the civil servants, who pleaded anonymity, told The Guardian that “At this moment, we don’t want a second term governor because of what we went through during Aregbesola’s second term. He suddenly became a monster and paid us half our salary at the period all other states were implementing a new minimum wage.
“Besides, Oyetola was his Chief of Staff for eight years and he cannot completely absolve himself from the anti-people policies of Aregbesola’s administration. Unknown to many, Oyetola has not paid the backlog of salaries Aregbeola owed us. He inherited assets and ran away from a backlog of salaries and allowances. We campaigned against him and enlightened our people not to be persuaded with inducement during election.”
The source said their campaign against vote-buying made many electorate to reject the N10, 000 shared by APC in many polling units to accept any amount PDP offered them. He argued that the money they collected from the PDP was not inducement but “appreciation” because they had made up their minds to vote for the PDP.
Besides, the campaign against APC as a failed party that did not fulfill its campaign promises of restructuring, insecurity, inflation, unemployment and erratic power supply resonated to the grassroots, which made many to seek change.
A party source said, “The performance of the Federal Government did not help us during the campaign. If you didn’t go out and meet people, you won’t know how people loathed our party in the state. Each time we go out on the house-to-house campaign, some questions they asked us about our performances at the federal level and our promises were too difficult to answer because we cannot pretend they are not real.”
A chieftain of the party, Alhaji Saka Adegbite said: “How can we explain that we lost in Ila, Baba Akande’s local council or at Ejigbo and other areas that are APC strongholds. We thought the National Secretary of the party, Senator Iyiola Omisore will deliver all the three local councils in Ile-Ife, but we won two with slight margins. We saw it coming but we never thought it would be this bad.”
It was also discovered that in 2018, APC was strong in about 15 to 16 local councils but due to the infighting, Ife Central where APC and SDP were strong four years ago was overrun by PDP last weekend. Places like Ejigbo, Ila, Ife South, Aiyedire and others were also weakened because of the crisis, giving PDP the advantage.
Ikire and Iwo local councils also fell victim as a result of the APC fracas. Although the likes of Oluwo of Iwo in Iwo local council boasted he would deliver the area to APC, he couldn’t because of the crisis. A former SSG to Aregbesola who also contested the APC governorship primary but lost to Oyetola was strong in Osun West.
The crisis in the party worsened when the party leadership constituted the 2022 Osun State Governorship Council, chaired by Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu of Lagos and his co-chairman, Governor Umaru Ganduje, who were Tinubu’s right-hand men while excluding Aregbesola’s name. The development pushed most loyalists of the minister out of the party to align with Adeleke.
Last Minute Plot Against Oyetola’s Return IT was gathered that on the eve of the election, former Deputy Speaker of House of Representatives, Lasun Yussuff, who also left APC to take up the ticket of the Labour Party directed his followers to vote for Adeleke.
In a similar vein, Aregbesola, who deliberately travelled out of the country, also allegedly directed his loyalists to cast their votes for Adeleke to spite the governor.
A chieftain of Osun APC, Alhaji Liad Tella described the victory of PDP “as a triumph of darkness over light” basically due to the protracted infighting among stakeholders in the ruling party. He said all is not lost, promising that the party will soon bounce back.
Fall Out Of 2020 COVID-19 Palliative Not many people would realise that part of the undoing of APC in Osun State is the manner in which some party members allegedly mismanaged the COVID-19 palliative handouts that were supposed to be distributed to alleviate the people’s suffering then.
A commercial motorcycle, Lani, told The Guardian that Adeleke warmed himself into the hearts of many citizens of Osun not only because he dances but because he is also very caring and kind.
According to him, “Majority of us are furious with the APC government because it is full of deceit and lies. In 2020, the party deliberately hoarded the COVID-19 palliative food items meant to alleviate the suffering of the masses until we discovered the stores and broke into them. Since then, the majority of us had made up our mind that Oyetola will not get a second term.”
Saraki, Diri, Obaseki’s Role In PDP’s Victory The PDP selected some of its most experienced strategists for the National Campaign Council. In the campaign council, three members devoted more time and resources to the campaigns, particularly in the last few days of the election. The trio, who chose to give more time to the Adeleke campaign, were former Senate President, Dr. Abubakar Bukola Saraki, Bayelsa State Governor, Sen. Duoye Diri, and his Edo State counterpart, Mr Godwin Obaseki.
While Diri was the chairman of the National Campaign Council, Obaseki who has known the PDP’s candidate’s elder brother, Deji Adeleke since their days in the financial sector in Lagos also felt obliged to share his experience in similar elections in 2020 when he was seeking re-election and had similar APC forces arrayed against him. His victory strategy was therefore needed and he decided to help the party in the same way the party helped him to defeat the APC forces.
As for Saraki, there were many reasons his interest in seeing PDP and the Adeleke win in Osun State. First, Osun State is a neighbouring state to his own Kwara State and he needed to ensure Osun State would not be used to sabotage PDP in Kwara State in next year’s election. Second, as the chairman of the PDP National Reconciliation and Strategic Committee (NRSC), Saraki handled the resolution of the crisis in the party in the state and is very well aware of the issues, personalities, and need for unity in Osun PDP if the party were to make any impact in the governorship polls. It thus became a challenge for him to help the Adeleke’s in making a last-minute rally of all forces and persons behind the candidate in order to defeat the divided APC.
Third, while his late father, Oloye Olusola Saraki was a colleague of the patriarch of the Adeleke’s in the Second Republic Senate, he and the late eldest brother of the Adeleke’s, Isiaka Adetunji were colleagues in the 7th and 8th Senate. Later, when Ademola, the PDP candidate replaced his late brother in the 8th Senate, he was a loyal supporter of Saraki, who was then Senate President. Fourth, the Saraki and Adeleke families remain the only two nuclear families to have produced three members of the Nigerian Senate respectively. Also, Deji Adeleke, the surviving eldest of the Adeleke brothers is a good friend of Saraki. Thus, for all these reasons, Saraki decided to throw in all the support for the Adeleke.
Saraki and his team moved from Ilorin where he had been since the eve of the last Eid-El- Kabir festival to Ede, the Adelekes’ hometown on Wednesday morning (July 13, 2022) and immediately on arrival went into a meeting with all the PDP polling agents. The venue of the training handled by the former Senate President was the Adeleke University, Ede. There, he shared some strategic lessons with the agents on how to carry out their assignments on polling day. He also emphasised to them the importance of their roles to the success of the party on Election Day.
The presence of such a dignitary not only inspired and encouraged the party agents but also emphasised to them how serious and ready the Osun PDP and the candidate’s campaign were about the election.
After the training session with party agents, Saraki drove back to Osogbo, the state capital with Deji Adeleke, the candidate’s elder brother to join PDP Governors who were getting ready to meet with ex-Governor Olagunsoye Oyinlola at his Osogbo GRA residence. The meeting was actually at the instance of Saraki, who believed that Oyinlola was aggrieved and needed to be pacified and appeased to support Adeleke. The party was able to appease Oyinlola and reconciled him with Adeleke.
Saraki went back to Ede that same night to meet with the PDP governorship candidate and his team where the meeting reviewed the preparation for the election and checked if all the necessary boxes had been ticked concerning critical areas of election preparation – security and logistics.
By Thursday morning, Saraki and his team were in Osogbo to coordinate the PDP mega rally. On Friday morning, Saraki commenced another series of meetings with aggrieved party stakeholders from each of the three senatorial districts. The first set was the people from Osun East. This particular one took up most of the day. At the end of the day, the issues appeared resolved and the party seemed ready for a good outing on Saturday.
On Election Day, as early as 6:00 am, Saraki was already in the situation room to start coordination. He was also joined by the two governors to supervise the situation room. They were practically getting reports from party agents, field officers, and observers across the state. The three men and their teams did not sleep until the results were announced in the early hours of Sunday morning.
It was because of their critical roles that soon after being pronounced the winner, Adeleke prostrated before his elder brother, Deji, held tightly to each of Saraki, Diri and Obaseki for their kind interventions that saved the day.
MEANWHILE, unlike in the APC where those who were disgruntled with the party successfully worked against Oyetola’s victory, some of the former PDP chieftains, such as Dr Akin Ogunbiyi; House of Representatives aspirant in Ede Federal Constituency, Ayodele Asalu (Asler); factional state chairman of PDP, Wale Ojo; running mate to the PDP candidate in the 2018 governorship election and former member of the House of Representatives, Hon. Albert Adeogun, who left the party angrily to the APC couldn’t wreak much havoc on the party’s chances.
The overwhelming popularity of Adeleke dynasty and the love from people of the state notwithstanding, his shortcomings and controversies surrounding his reported Christian-Christian ticket and capacity worked in favour of the major opposition party.
Also speaking, a member of the Senate, Senator Francis Fadahunsi described the victory as liberation of the poor masses in Osun.
He said: “This is a victory for democracy and liberation for the suffering masses in Osun. We have to thank Senator Bukola Saraki, former Senate President, incoming Vice President of PDP, and Governor Okowa, these are the people that really backed Osun PDP including Adeleke’s senior brother, Deji Adeleke. These are the people who stood by Senator Adeleke to the last.
“We have to also thank Ademola for his large-heartedness and bravery, if not, he would have run away. What will happen in 2023 is already known, we are going to win the presidency and all National Assembly seats with the backing of the incoming Governor Ademola Adeleke and Governor Seyi Makinde. Automatically, we will win the elections with the cooperation of the party leaders. It’s time for Osun to work and Governor-elect Ademola Adeleke is here to make it work,” Fadahunsi said.
Sarah Lavin shook off the nerves – and a dangerous mid-race mistake – to power through to the 100m hurdles semi-finals at the World Athletics Championships in Oregon, the Limerick athlete clocking 12.99 to finish third in her heat on Saturday morning.
hat gave her an automatic qualifying spot behind Nigeria’s Tobi Amusan (12.40) and Jamaica’s Danielle Williams (12.87) and, crucially, gives Lavin a chance to correct her errors and attack her personal best of 12.84 in Sunday evening’s semi-final. On a cool, breezy morning at Hayward Field, there were several high-profile casualties in the heats with reigning world champion Nia Ali among those crashing out.
Lavin came close to a similar fate after clattering a barrier mid-race but she kept her balance to carry on and advance. “That’s a concentration thing – I have to run my own race,” she said. “The big thing today was getting through – a big Q is a luxury. Job done.”
The Emerald AC athlete had been in Eugene for nine days ahead of the race and admitted the wait had led to increased tension as she took to the line. “I was quite nervous, it’s been a hell of a wait, but we’ve got here, it’s job done this morning – reset and go again,” she said. “It was really expected of me to get through this first round, it was a weight on my shoulder I navigated. It wasn’t a clean race. I’ll have to be a lot sharper tomorrow.”
Lavin will line in up in one of three semi-finals on Sunday evening, which get under way at 5.10pm in Eugene (1.10am Irish time). “I do think a 12.70 will be required to make a final,” she said. “Derval’s national record is 12.65 and just to make a final it’s looking like you’ll have to get near that. All I can do myself is clean up today.”
It’s been a breakthrough year so far. Lavin smashed her personal best over 60m hurdles to make the world indoor final in Belgrade in March and lowered her PB to 12.84 in Cork ahead of the World Championships. The lesson she learned in Belgrade that she plans to put to use here? “Anything is possible,” she said.
Over the past 25 years there has been lots of research and debate about the concept, the history and state of globalisation, its various dimensions and benefits.
The World Economic Forum has set out the case that the world has experienced four waves of globalisation. In a 2019 publication it summarised them as follows.
The first wave is seen as the period since the late 19th century, boosted by the industrial revolution associated with the improvements in transportation and communication, and ended in 1914. The second wave commenced after WW2 in 1945 and ended in 1989. The third commenced with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the disbanding of the former Soviet Union in 1991, and ended with the global financial crises in 2008.
The fourth wave kicked off in 2010 with the recovery of the impact of the global financial crises, the rising of the digital economy, artificial intelligence and, among others, the increasing role of China as a global powerhouse.
More recent debates on the topic focus on whether the world is now experiencing a retraction from the fourth wave and whether it is ready for the take-off of the fifth wave.
The similarities between the retraction period of the first wave and the current global dynamics a century later are startling. But do these similarities mean that a retraction from globalisation is evident? Is there sufficient evidence of de-globalisation or rather “slowbalisation”?
Parallels
The drawn-out retreat from globalisation during the 30-year period – 1914 to 1945 – was characterised by the geopolitical and economic impact of WWI and WWII. Other factors were the 1918-1920 Spanish Flu pandemic ; the Stock Market Crash of 1929 followed by the Great Depression of the 1930s; and the rise of the Communist Bloc under Stalin in the 1940s.
This period was further typified by protectionist sentiments, increases in tariffs and other trade barriers and a general retraction in international trade.
Looking at the current global context, the parallels are remarkable. The world is still fighting the COVID pandemic that had devastating effects on the world economy, global supply chains and people’s lives and well-being.
For its part, the Russia-Ukraine war has caused major global uncertainties and food shortages. It has also led to increases in gas and fuel prices, further disruptions in global value chains and political polarisation.
The increase in the price of various consumer goods and in energy have put pressure on the general price level. World inflation is aggressively on the rise for the first time in 40 years. Monetary authorities worldwide are trying to fight inflation.
Global governance institutions like the World Trade Organisation and the UN, which functioned well in the post-WWII period, now have less influence while the Russian-Ukraine war has split the world politically into three groups. They are the Russian invasion supporters, the neutral countries and those opposing, a group dominated by the US, EU and the UK. This split is contributing to complex geopolitical challenges, which are slowly leading to changes in trade partnerships and regionalism.
Europe is already looking for new suppliers for oil and gas and early indications of the potential expansion of the Chinese influence in Asia are evident.
A less connected world
De-globalisation is seen as
a movement towards a less connected world, characterised by powerful nation states, local solutions and border controls rather than global institutions, treaties, and free movement.
There’s now talk of slowbalisation. The term was first used by trendwatcher and futurologist Adjiedji Bakas in 2015 to describe the phenomenon as the
continued integration of the global economy via trade, financial and other flows, albeit at a significant slower pace.
The data on economic globalisation paint an interesting picture. They show that, even before the COVID pandemic hit the world in 2020, a deceleration in the intensity of globalisation is evident. The data which represent broad measures of globalisation, includes:
World exports of goods and services. As a percentage of world GDP, these reached an all-time high of 31% in 2008 at the end of the third globalisation wave. Exports fell as a percentage of global GDP and only recovered to that level during the early stages of the fourth wave in 2011. Exports then slowly started to regress to 28% of global GDP in 2019 and further to a low of 26% during the first Covid-19 year in 2020.
The volume of foreign direct investment inflows. These reached a peak of US$2 trillion in 2016 before trending lower, reaching US$1.48 trillion in 2019. Although the 2020 foreign direct investment inflows of US$963 billion are a staggering 20% below the 2009 financial crises level, they recovered to US$1.58 billion in 2021.
Foreign direct investment as percentage of GDP started to increase from a mere 1% in 1989 to a peak of 5,3% in 2007. After a retraction following the global financial crises, it peaked again in 2015 and 2016 at around 3,5%. It then declined to 1,7% in 2019 and 1,4% in 2020.
Multinational enterprises have been the major vehicle for economic globalisation over time. The number of them indicates the willingness of companies to invest outside their home countries. In 2008 the UN Conference on Trade and Development reported approximately 82 000. The number declined to 60 000 in 2017.
Data on world private capital flows (including foreign direct investment, portfolio equity flows, remittances and private sector borrowing) are not readily available. However, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development data show that private capital flows for reporting countries reached an all-time high of US$414 billion in 2014, followed by a declining trend to US$229 billion in 2019 and a negative outflow of US$8 billion in 2020.
These declining trends are further substantiated by the evidence of deeper fragmentation in economic relations caused by Brexit and the problematic US/China relations, in particular during the Trump era.
What next?
The question now is whether the latest data is:
indicative of either a retraction from globalisation similar to that experienced after the first wave a century ago;
or it is merely a process of de-globalisation;
or slowbalisation in anticipation of the world economy’s recovery from the impact of Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine?
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Success!
Almost finished…
We need to confirm your email address.
To complete the process, please follow the instructions in the email we just sent you.
Error!
There was a problem processing your submission. Please try again later.
The similarities between the first wave of globalisation and the existing global events are certainly significant, although embedded in a total different world order.
The current dynamics shaping the world such as the advancement of technology, the digital era and the speed with which technology and information is spread, will certainly influence the intensity of the retraction of the already embedded dependence on globalisation.
Nation states realise that blindly entering into contracts and agreements with companies in other countries, may be problematic and that trade and investment partners need to be chosen carefully. The events over the past three years have certainly shown that economies around the world are deeply integrated and, despite examples of protectionism and threats of more inward-looking policies, it will not be possible to retract in totality.
What may occur is fragmentation where supply chains becoming more regionalised. Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz refers to the move to “friend shoring” of production, a phrase coined by US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.
It is becoming obvious that the process of globalisation certainly shows characteristics of both de-globalisation and slowbalisation. It’s also clear that the global external shocks require a total rethink, repurpose and reform of the process of globalisation. This will most probably lead the world into the fifth wave of globalisation.
Elsabe Loots, Professor of Economics and former Dean of the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, University of Pretoria
As Africa celebrates its finest stars in Rabat, Morocco on Thursday night, major broadcasters will beam the live event in many parts of the world.
The CAF Awards will be held in Rabat, Morocco from 20h00 local time (19h00 GMT and 21h00 Cairo time).
Africa’s star footballers have been setting the world’s football stadiums alight and their popularity and talent has ensured unprecedented interest from some of the leading broadcasters in Africa and across the globe.
Already confirmed are international broadcasters across sub-Saharan Africa including Canal+, SuperSport and StarTimes, while beIN Sport will broadcast across North Africa and the Middle East, as well as on its channels in the Asia-Pacific region.
In the African region, over 44 countries will have access to the CAF Awards on their Free to Air platforms.
For the first time, CAF Awards will be shown in new territories in Europe including Germany.
For the territories not covered by CAF’s broadcast partners, CAF will stream live the CAF Awards 2022 on YouTube (CAFTV) with a choice of French or English language options.
Tesla reported solid quarterly earnings Wednesday despite a hit from Covid-19 lockdowns in Shanghai that Chief Executive Elon Musk said prompted the company to liquidate most of its bitcoin holdings.
Musk, who has generated recent headlines over his controversial withdrawal from a $44 billion acquisition of Twitter, said the company had navigated a tricky environment with the Shanghai closure and lingering supply chain problems that have raised costs.
The electric vehicle maker reported second-quarter profits of $2.3 billion, about twice that in the year-ago period as the automaker lifted car prices to “embarrassing” levels, as Musk put it.
Although Tesla profits topped estimates, they lagged behind those in the first quarter, the first sequential profit drop since late 2020, which coincided with a fall in automotive profit margins due to rising costs.
And while revenues jumped 42 percent to $16.9 billion, they came in below the $17.1 billion projected by analysts.
Musk described the period as a “unique quarter,” but told investors and analysts on a conference call that the restart of the Shanghai plant and the ramp-up of new factories in Germany and Texas create “the potential for a record-breaking second half of the year.”
The company cited the drag from Shanghai, where its factory was shuttered for part of the quarter. But Tesla said it finished the three-month period with “a record monthly production level” after the China restart.
Tesla said supply chain challenges remain an ongoing headache, as factory shutdowns, labor shortages, logistics and other issues “limited our ability to consistently run our factories at full capacity.”
Bitcoin sale During the quarter, Tesla liquidated about 75 percent of its holdings in bitcoin, the value of which has declined sharply in 2022.
The moves on bitcoin resulted in one-time costs of $106 million, said Chief Financial Officer Zachary Kirkhorn.
Musk attributed the move to the need to raise cash because of the uncertainty of when Shanghai operations would return.
The sale “should not be taken as some verdict on bitcoin,” Musk said at the outset of the call.
But cryptocurrency is a “side show to the side show” compared with the goal of accelerating the energy transition, said Musk, who pointed to the scorching heat now plaguing many countries as underscoring the need for change.
Torrid demand for Musk’s electric vehicles has allowed Tesla to pass on higher prices to consumers.
In the United States, Tesla’s cheapest vehicle, the Model 3, starts at nearly $50,000.
“We’ve raised our prices quite a few times, they’re frankly at embarrassing levels. ” Musk said. “But we’ve also had a lot of supply chain and production shocks and we’ve got crazy inflation.
“I am hopeful — this is not a promise or anything, but I’m hopeful that at some point we can reduce the prices a little bit,” he said.
Bullish on rest of 2022 Several analysts had viewed the second quarter as the weakest of the year for Tesla in the aftermath of the Shanghai factory lockdown and other supply chain issues.
But many Tesla watchers are bullish on the second half of 2022 in light of the company’s growing production profile.
CFRA Research analyst Garrett Nelson told AFP the second quarter was “especially impressive” given the headwinds of the Shanghai closure and the costs of upping production at new plants.
Musk has shown boundless confidence in Tesla’s ability to shake up the auto market, leading the company as it has met production targets on its core product, even as the cars remain too expensive for many consumers.
But Musk has been less enthusiastic of late about the economy as a whole, saying last month that a recession “appears more likely than not” and confirming plans to reduce the company’s salaried work force by about 10 percent.
Most recently, the controversial CEO has become embroiled in a messy fight with Twitter after withdrawing his takeover bid. The case will go to trial in October to determine Musk will be forced to complete the transaction.
Shares of Tesla added 1.6 percent to $754.45 in after-hours trading.
Ukraine’s army is putting up fierce frontline resistance against Russian troops, but President Volodymyr Zelensky’s shock dismissal of two top law enforcement officials has revealed another front in the war closer to home — against spies and Kremlin sympathisers.
His dismissal of SBU security chief Ivan Bakanov, a childhood friend of President Zelensky, and of prosecutor general Iryna Venediktova, is unprecedented since the start of the invasion.
The decision was announced Sunday and approved by parliament on Tuesday, with Zelensky berating the pair for their failure to counter the activities of Russian spies and collaborators in Ukraine.
In his daily video address, he said there were over 650 cases involving officials suspected of treason and aiding Russia, including 60 “working against our state” in Russian-held areas of the country.
“Everyone was expecting… more tangible results” from Bakanov and Venediktova in “fighting collaborators and traitors”, said Andriy Smyrnov, deputy head of the presidential administration.
‘The last straw’ “The president and his cabinet were not pleased with the work of Bakanov and Venediktova” even before the Russian invasion, Ukrainian political analyst Volodymyr Fesenko told AFP.
In the last few months, at least three top SBU officials have been accused of high treason.
One of them, Oleg Kulinich, who was sacked in March and was arrested on Sunday, had been based in the southern region of Kherson.
Situated close to the Crimean peninsula which was annexed by Moscow in 2014, the region was quickly taken over by Russian troops at the start of the invasion — a significant setback for which the government was heavily criticised.
“This man was collaborating with Russian secret services. It is a very serious blow. In my view, it was the last straw for Zelensky,” Fesenko said.
Zelensky had already sacked the regional head of the SBU for Kherson, Sergiy Kryvoruchko.
Another SBU official is suspected of having shared with Russian troops top secret maps of minefields intended to hamper their advance.
Zelensky on Monday said there would be a “review” within the SBU, pointing out that 28 agents could be sacked for “unsatisfactory” work.
One of Bakanov’s deputies has also been sacked.
Prisoner exchanges at risk? Venediktova was heading up the high-profile investigations into atrocities committed by Russian forces, particularly in the town of Bucha, which became a symbol of the alleged Russian war crimes.
According to the influential news site Ukrainska Pravda, she incurred the wrath of the presidency by attracting excessive media attention and for rushing through trials of captured Russian soldiers.
According to the report, the trials angered Moscow and made negotiations over prisoner swaps — a priority for Zelensky — more difficult.
For many observers in Ukraine, the reshuffle appears to have been a move to reinforce presidential control over law enforcement.
The interim replacements of both Bakanov and Venediktova — their respective deputies — are considered to be more politically docile.
“It is clear” that these men “will execute all the political orders” of the presidency, said Tetyana Shevchuk, an expert from the Centre for Action Against Corruption, a non-governmental organisation, cited by Forbes Ukraine.
Eugene — Just as he predicted, it ended up to be a fast race where a World Lead was set, but Timothy Cheruiyot is not shocked with the result.
Cheruiyot surrendered the world title to Briton Jack Wightman who won gold in style after clocking fastest time this season (3:29.23) toppling Kenyan Abel Kipsang, who entered the race as a favourite.
Speaking to Capital Sport in Eugene, Oregon after the race, Cheruiyot, who finished sixth in a Seasons Best of 3:30.69, blamed a nagging hamstring injury he picked as he was preparing the Kenya Prisons Championship.
“We planned the race well to ran as a team, we were chatting with Kipsang after the first lap, I encouraged him that we should not let it go, but unfortunately with 100m to go, my legs were tired. I did not make it to the podium but I am happy I made it to the final,” Cheruiyot, the Olympic silver medallist said.
He added, “I was suspecting I will post such results because I missed training for a few months before the Championships because of a hamstring injury, and that is why you saw the results in Doha and Eugene Diamond League.”
“I predicted it will be a tough final, but good thing is that my injury is now healing, I will reschedule my program and work hard for the upcoming Championship,” Cheruiyot underscored.
-Kipsang miscalculations-
Meanwhile, Kipsang is now hoping to make the amends in Commonwealth Games to be hosted in Birmingham, United Kingdom.
The 25-year-old started well, taking control of the race after the first lap but they seemed to have a miscommunication with teammate Cheruiyot when they were approaching the bell.
“We worked as a team with Cheruiyot but our plan did not go as expected. Now focus is on the Commonwealth Games, we promise we will do better there and make amends, I am confident we will win, I did some miscalculations and I did not know it will go that way… ” Kipsang underpinned.
-Alex Isaboke is reporting live from Eugene, Oregon, USA-
Berlin — With the invasion of Ukraine, Russia effectively destroyed the European peace order. Now, Europe needs to find ways to contain its aggressive neighbour, while its traditional protector, the United States, continues its shift of focus to the Indo-Pacific.
This task, however, becomes impossible when China and Russia are driven into each other’s arms because, if anything, the key to end the war in Ukraine lies in Beijing. China hesitates to be dragged into this European war as bigger questions are at stake for the emerging superpower:
Will the silk road be wrecked by a new iron curtain? Shall it stick to its ‘limitless alliance’ with Russia? And what about the territorial integrity of sovereign states? In short: for China, it is about the world order.
The unipolar moment after the triumph of the West in the Cold War is over. The war in Ukraine clearly marks the end of the Pax Americana. Russia and China openly challenge American hegemony. Russia may have proven to be a giant with clay feet, and has inadvertently strengthened the unity of the West.
But the shift of the global balance of power to East Asia is far from over. In China, the United States has encountered a worthy rival for global predominance. But Moscow, Delhi, and Brussels also aspire to become power hubs in the coming multipolar order.
So, we are witnessing the end of the end of history. What comes next? To better understand how world orders emerge and erode, a quick look at history can be helpful.
What is on the menu?
Over the course of the long 19th century, a great power concert has provided stability in a multipolar world. Given the nascent state of international law and multilateral institutions, congresses were needed to carefully calibrate the balance between different spheres of interest.
The relative peace within Europe, of course, was dearly bought by the aggressive outward expansion of its colonial powers.
This order was shattered at the beginning of the World War I. What followed were three decades of disorder rocked by wars and revolutions. Not unlike today, the conflicting interests of great powers collided without any buffer, while the morbid domestic institutions could not mitigate the devastating social cost of the Great Transformation.
With the founding of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the foundations of a liberal order were laid after the end of World War II. However, with the onset of the Cold War, this experiment quickly ran into a quagmire.
Pinched between two antagonistic blocs, the United Nations was in a deadlock for decades. From the Hungarian Revolution over the Prague Spring to the Cuban missile crisis, peace between the nuclear powers was maintained through the recognition of exclusive zones of influence.
After the triumph of the West in the Cold War, American hyperpower quickly declared a new order for a now unipolar world. In this liberal world order, rule-breaking was sanctioned by the world’s policeman.
Proponents of the liberal world order pointed to the rapid diffusion of democracy and human rights around the globe. Critics see imperial motifs at work behind the humanitarian interventions. But even progressives place great hopes in the expansion of international law and multilateral cooperation.
Now that the West is mired in crises, global cooperation is again paralysed by systemic rivalry. From the war in Georgia over the annexation of Crimea to the crackdown in Hong Kong, the recognition of exclusive zones of influence is back in the toolbox of international politics.
After a short heyday, the liberal elements of the world order are jammed again. China has begun to lay the foundations of an illiberal multilateral architecture.
How will great power competition play out?
In the coming decade, the rivalries between great powers are likely to continue with undiminished vigour. The ultimate prize of this great power competition is a new world order. Five different scenarios are conceivable.
First, the liberal world order could survive the end of the unipolar American moment. Second, a series of wars and revolutions can lead to the total collapse of order. Third, a great power concert could bring relative stability in a multipolar world but fail to tackle the great challenges facing humanity.
Fourth, a new cold war may partly block the rule-based multilateral system, but still allow for limited cooperation in questions of common interest. And finally, an illiberal order with Chinese characteristics. Which scenario seems the most probable?
Many believe that democracy and human rights need to be promoted more assertively. However, after the fall of Kabul, even liberal centrists like Joe Biden und Emmanuel Macron have declared the era of humanitarian interventions to be over.
Should another isolationist nationalist like Trump or others of his ilk come to power in Washington, London, or Paris, the defence of the liberal world order would once and for all be off the agenda. Berlin is in danger of running out of allies for its new value-based foreign policy.
In all Western capitals, there are broad majorities across the ideological spectrum that seek to up the ante in the systemic rivalry with China and Russia. The global reaction to the Russian invasion shows, however, that the rest of the world has very little appetite for a new bloc confrontation between democracies and autocracies.
The support for Russia’s attack on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine – values especially smaller countries unwaveringly adhere to – should not be read as sympathy for a Russian or Chinese-led order, but as deep frustration over the US empire.
Seen from the Global South, the not-so-liberal world order was merely a pretext for military interventions, structural adjustment programmes, and moral grandstanding. Now, the West comes to realise that in order to prevail geopolitically, it needs the cooperation of undemocratic powers from Turkey to the Gulf monarchies, from Singapore to Vietnam.
The high-minded rhetoric of the systemic rivalry between democracies against autocracies is prone to alienate these much-needed potential allies. But if even the West were to give up on universalism of democracy and human rights, what would be left of the liberal world order?
Are the great power rivalries that play out in the background of the war in Ukraine, the coups in Western Africa and the protests in Hong Kong only the beginning of a new period of wars, coups, and revolutions?
The ancient Greek philosopher Thucydides already knew that the competition between rising and declining great powers can beget great wars. So, are we entering a new period of disorder?
Not only in Moscow and Beijing, but also in Washington, there are thinkers that seek to mitigate these destructive dynamics of the multipolar world through a new concert of great powers. The coordination of great power interests in fora from the G7 to the G20 could be the starting point for this new form of club governance. The recognition of exclusive zones of influence can help to mitigate conflict.
However, there is reason for concern that democracy and human rights will be the first victims of such high-powered horse-trading. This form of minimal cooperation may also be inadequate to tackle the many challenges humankind is facing from climate change over pandemics to mass migration.
The European Union, an entity based on the rule of law and the permanent harmonisation of interests, may have a particularly hard time to thrive in such a dog-eat-dog world.
Not only in Moscow, some fantasize about a revival of imperialism that negates the right to self-determination of smaller nations. This dystopian mix of technologically supercharged surveillance state on the inside and never-ending proxy wars on the outside is eerily reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984. One can only hope that this illiberal neo-imperialism is shattered in the war in Ukraine.
The Russian recognition of separatist provinces of a sovereign state have rung the alarm bells in Beijing. After all, what if Taiwan follows this model and declares its independence? At least rhetorically, Beijing has returned to its traditional line of supporting national sovereignty and condemning colonialist meddling in internal affairs.
There are debates in Beijing whether China should really side with a weakened pariah state and retreat behind a new iron curtain, or would benefit more from an open and rules-based global order.
So, what is this ‘Chinese Multilateralism’ promoted by the latter school of thought? On the one hand, a commitment to international law and cooperation to tackle the great challenges facing humankind, from climate change over securing trade routes to peacekeeping.
However, China is only willing to accept any framework for cooperation if it is on equal footing with the United States. This is why Beijing takes the United Nations Security Council seriously, but tries to replace the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund with its own institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
If Chinese calls for equal footing are rejected, Beijing can still form its own geopolitical bloc with allies across Eurasia, Africa, and Latin America. In such an illiberal order, there would still be rule-based cooperation, but no longer any institutional incentives for democracy and human rights.
Hard choices: what should we strive for?
Alas, with a view of containing an aggressive Russia, a rapprochement with China may have its merits. For many in the West, this would require an about-face. After all, the recently fired German admiral Schönbach was not the only one who wanted to enlist Russia as an ally for a new cold war with China.
Even if Americans and Chinese would bury the hatchet, a post-liberal world order would pose a predicament for Western societies.
Is the price for peace really the right to self-determination of peoples? Is cooperation to tackle the great challenges facing humankind contingent on the rebuttal of the universality of human rights? Or is there still a responsibility to protect, even when the atrocities are committed in the exclusive zone of influence of a great power rival?
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Success!
Almost finished…
We need to confirm your email address.
To complete the process, please follow the instructions in the email we just sent you.
Error!
There was a problem processing your submission. Please try again later.
These questions go right to the West’s normative foundation.
Which order will prevail in the end will be determined by fierce great power competition. However, who is willing to rally around the banner of each different model differs significantly. Only a narrow coalition of Western states and a handful of Indo-Pacific value partners will come to the defence of democracy and human rights.
If this Western-led alliance of democracies loses the power struggle against the so-called axis of autocracies, the outcome could well be an illiberal world order with Chinese characteristics.
At the same time, the defence of international law, especially the inviolability of borders and the right to self-defence, are generally in the interest of democratic and authoritarian powers alike. An alliance for multilateral cooperation with the United Nations at its core finds supports across the ideological spectrum.
Finally, there could be issue-based cooperation between different centres. If ideological differences are set aside, hybrid partners could cooperate, for instance, in the fight against climate change or piracy, but be fierce competitors in the race for high-tech or energy.
Thus, it would not be surprising if the United States were to replace their ‘alliance of democracies’ with a more inclusive coalition platform.
Politically, Germany can only survive within the framework of a united Europe. Economically, it can only prosper in open world markets. For both, a rules-based, multilateral order is indispensable. Given the intensity of today’s systemic rivalry, some may doubt its feasibility. However, it is worth remembering that even at the heyday of the Cold War, within the framework of a constrained multilateralism, cooperation based on common interests did occur.
From arms control over the ban of the ozone-killer CFC to the Helsinki Accords, the balance sheet of this limited multilateralism was not too bad. In view to the challenges facing humankind, from climate change over pandemics to famines, this limited multilateralism may just be the best among bad options. For what is at stake is the securing of the very foundations of peace, freedom, unity, and prosperity in Europe.
Marc Saxer coordinates the regional work of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) in the Asia Pacific. Previously, he led the FES offices in India and Thailand and headed the FES Asia Pacific department.
Source: International Politics and Society published by the Global and European Policy Unit of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Hiroshimastrasse 28, D-10785 Berlin.
