This week, Farai talks with Daily Beast columnist Wajahat Ali about the trials he and his family have faced in America as muslims with Pakistani roots. She then speaks with Glynda Carr of Higher Heights for America, and Carol Jenkins of the ERA Coalition to discuss how Black women and women of color fare in the upcoming midterm elections. On the weekly segment, ‘Sippin’ the Political Tea’ Farai was joined by CNN’s Eliza Anyangwe and podcaster Hagar Chemali to talk about the ongoing crisis between Russia and Ukraine, as well as Vice-President Kamala Harris’ role as world leaders attempt to intervene.
Farai Chideya:
Hi folks, we are so glad that you're listening to Our Body Politic. If you have time, please consider leaving us a review on Apple Podcast. It helps other listeners find us and we read them for your feedback. We're here for you, with you, and because of you. Thank you.
Farai Chideya:
This is Our Body Politic. I'm Farai Chideya. What does it take to be accepted into the American mainstream? With xenophobia on the rise, is that even possible or desirable? And especially if you are a person of color, how do you create a sense of self-acceptance in a world that may not accept you as you are? These are all things on the mind of Wajahat Ali, Daily Beast columnist and co-host of the podcast Democracy-ish. He's out with a new book titled Go Back to Where You Came From: And Other Helpful Recommendations on How to Become American. It digs into the double standards he and his family faced as Muslims and Pakistani Americans in the U.S. I caught up with him on the book and the power that he has claimed as a storyteller.
Farai Chideya:
So you joked on an appearance on MSNBC that your parents named you Wajahat to fit in. And then we see this picture of you as a kid, this cute little chubby kid. So who was little was Waj? And give us your origin story.
Wajahat Ali:
Little Waj was born and raised in the Bay Area, California to Pakistani immigrant parents who just did not give a single F about him integrating or assimilating or blending in, named him Wajahat, didn't teach him English, born and raised in America because who needs English? And just one day decided to drop him off at Child's Hideaway Preschool without telling him where he was going to go, where he discovered his rank in the American hierarchy. I feel like oftentimes it's school where you learn where you belong. Where you learn you're not the protagonist of America's narrative. And no one else was brown and I was the only Muslim kid and I had turmeric stains on my fingernails. I wore husky pants, shy, awkward, sick. But eventually, because I learned how to tell stories, I've discovered a superpower. And through time, this is important, it just didn't happen overnight, through time and mentorship and encouragement, that small skill that I discovered at the age of 10 gave me respect.
Farai Chideya:
You talk about being a young man and after the attacks on 9/11, there was a [condemnathon 00:02:50]. You bring out some great language in this book. So what was that moment like for you?
Wajahat Ali:
So the 9/11 was a fork in the road for our generations, but especially for Muslims in America, those who thought they were white or were chasing whiteness, who were rudely reminded that no, you're actually never going to be white. You're actually the other. You're actually not us. You're them. You're the villains. You're the axis of evil and tag, you're it in this perpetual remake of the American narrative where we have to haze and bash the other.
Wajahat Ali:
And it was a rude awakening for many people, especially my parents' generation who chased the model minority myth. And for us who kind of internalized it, but in the sense still rejected it, it was a rude awakening that no matter what I do, I will always be seen as a suspect. And so I have to condemn violent acts done by violent people I have never met for the rest of my life. And even then Farai, it will never be enough. You have to condemn faster, you have to condemn harder. And then when you do condemn fast and you do condemn hard, then you get told you're the unicorn, you're the magical, modern Muslim. How come the rest can't be like you?
Wajahat Ali:
Then you have to paraphrase Toni Morrison, racism becomes exhausting because you find yourself proving yourself to this judge during execution that no matter how much evidence you present, it's never enough. It's never enough. And so that's the condemnathon that even now, to this day 2022, Muslims are expected to condemn violent acts done by violent people. And if we do not overtly condemn it, all of a sudden, it means that we somehow are complicit or we approve. And that double standard is never, ever, ever applied, nor should it be applied to the white majority. Even though the number one domestic terror threat in America is white supremacist terrorism, but you never see like Chet who's eating his Cheetos being asked, “Hey, Chet, do you condemn this white supremacist shooter who killed all these people in the name of whiteness?” And Chet's like, “What do you ... What's whiteness? I'm going to go watch Netflix now.”
Farai Chideya:
Yeah. That is pretty much how things have been spooling out. And it seems to me that we are really at a time where all of the metanarratives or the sort of like the equivalent of subtweets in political conversation are all just headlines and banners right now, with the Senate majority leader, talking about African Americans voting at the same rate as Americans.
Wajahat Ali:
There you go.
Farai Chideya:
And then saying that, “Critique of his words were hurtful and offensive.” I just get ... You know, there's so many times that someone says something or does something and then there's like this, “Oh, but I'm the one who's hurt.” How do you deal with the verbal jiu-jitsu of that?
Wajahat Ali:
Yeah. Yeah. So you and me are racist for talking about racism that exists. You and me are being divisive for talking about white supremacy, which has crushed our communities. You and me are the race hustlers for bringing up racism. And we are milking the teat of liberal white guilt and making them feel guilty. Because that's all that you and me want to do is to talk about racism, right? Like, we don't want to live our lives. We don't want to watch Netflix. We don't want to, I don't know, go get our favorite boba tea. What we really love to do is talk about these oppressive systems that humiliate us and denigrate us every day. And that's the jiu-jitsu that we have to engage in and the kind of absurdity of living in the American experience is that those who are oppressed have to placate the anxiety and the fears of the white majority. We have to make you feel better about the racism that we have to endure. And the reason why we have to engage in these verbal gymnastics is literally for our survival.
Farai Chideya:
Yeah.
Wajahat Ali:
Because we don't have the power. So in order for us to literally crawl ahead, the implicit rules of the game is we have to engage in this type of lopsided relationship to even get to the discourse that is necessary for us to have the advancement. Like, I have to make you comfortable enough to talk about racism for you to lower your defenses and to maybe just maybe implement the changes in your personal life and the statutes and the policies, so the rest of us have the chance, the chance to live the American dream.
Farai Chideya:
Yeah. I think that there's a point to writing books and to talking, which is something that you do, obviously, not just in this book, Go Back to Where You Came From, but also your co-host of the podcast, Democracy-ish. But is it draining for you? How do you refill the well? We talk about that a lot here with people who work with ideas or structures. How do you refill the well for dealing with all of this?
Wajahat Ali:
Yeah. So connecting the dots, in America, we always want to get to reconciliation, but we don't want to talk about the truth. So we want to just kind of fast forward reconciliation and fast forward through history. Right? But the truth is what we don't want to touch. Because the truth then reveals the ugliness, the pain, the white supremacy, the structures, the systems. And it also then makes us, as a country, confront what are our individual roles in either being complicit or resisting it. So that's an uncomfortable conversation. And that's why we prefer these narratives and these myths. And if you're not telling your story in America, your story is always being told to you by others. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the CRT bands right now. And so what we you have to do is we have to continuously push back. And you know, my professor, Ishmael Reed, he said writing is a fighting, right?
Farai Chideya:
Mm-hmm (affirmative)
Wajahat Ali:
Arts and cultures and storytelling is how we literally live. It's how we give voice to our ancestors. It's how we put our flag in the ground in America. So you can erase us, you can't erase our stories. You can't erase us as co-protagonists. We're not going anywhere.
Wajahat Ali:
And yes, it's exhausting. But at the same time, I find the act of creation and the act of storytelling and the act of sharing, that to me, is very exciting. And I feel like your generation, my generation, us old timers, we never used to talk about self-care and this young generation seems to get it. I think also investing in joy. And the final thing I'll say is modeling joy.
Farai Chideya:
Yes.
Wajahat Ali:
It's critical for future generations because future generations will tap out. They're like, “You guys have crapy lives, you're exhausted, you're stressed, your marriages suck. I don't want this, F this.” You got to give them something to show them that it's worth it. And I feel like us investing in joy and in happiness and like brushing it off and saying, “We're going to enjoy our food and our culture and our stories. You want to come to the party? Go ahead. You don't, I don't care.” That's very important for the young generation to see that there is value in our cultures, in our narratives, in our stories and that we get joy from it. It's critical.
Farai Chideya:
Yeah. Well, I want to end with a very ... It's just been amazing to see some of this play out, your daughter's journey with cancer, where you were able to essentially present it in public spaces, from a Ted talk to Twitter. And that did seem to help with how she was able to find a liver transplant for the kind of cancer she had. Does that journey affirm something about why bother engaging with humanity?
Wajahat Ali:
Several things. First and foremost, it affirms the power of storytelling. My daughter, Nusayba, didn't become a statistic, she became a person. And people invested in her journey and her narrative. And my mother said later on after she got her liver transplant. Right now, she's thankfully, knock on wood, cancer free.
Farai Chideya:
That's beautiful.
Wajahat Ali:
She's five, she's happy, she's singing Encanto songs. My mom said, “Had you become a doctor, maybe Nusayba wouldn't have been alive because as a storyteller, you were able to write her story and we got 500 anonymous donors to step up to be a potential liver donor for a girl they never met.” And some of these donors, they email me and said, “We hate your politics, but we're signed up to be donors.” One guy said, “I hate everything you tweet.” And I said, “Everything?” He goes, “Everything, but I'm praying for your daughter.”
Farai Chideya:
Wow!
Wajahat Ali:
And so, as I mentioned in the book, that journey of these individuals in these divided times, stepping up to help a little girl, makes us realize that we still have a shared humanity, that sometimes some people can still change and be good. And people still have the capacity for goodness. Right?
Farai Chideya:
Yeah.
Wajahat Ali:
And you should never give up. And even through Nusayba's journey, like there were times where we're like, how will she survive? And I used to imagine burying her. I used to imagine making the phone call to the grandparents. I used to imagine living my life without her, but then I chose to invest in the narrative that maybe she will somehow survive and she will live and have a happy, full life. And I choose to invest in that narrative and I choose to work towards that happy ending.
Farai Chideya:
Wajahat, thank you so much. I'm so grateful for the time you've spent with us and keep on creating. I know that you can't do any different.
Wajahat Ali:
If you don't have hope, you despair. And if you're not crying, well, hopefully, you're laughing. And so take a moment to be grateful. And the story is still being written. I do not see an end sign yet. So the page can turn and in [inaudible 00:12:12], as we say, God willing, it could bring with it a plot twist and a better ending.
Farai Chideya:
Thanks again. That's Wajahat Ali, Daily Beast columnist and co-host of the podcast, Democracy-ish, and author of the new book, Go Back to Where You Came From. Coming up next.
Glynda Carr:
We find ourselves with zero black women in the U.S. Senate, only electing two in our country's history, zero black women governors, zero black women on the United States Supreme Court. This year, we have an opportunity to eliminate those zeros.
Farai Chideya:
Plus what's happening in Ukraine and other top geopolitical stories of the week. That's on Our Body Politic.
Farai Chideya:
This is Our Body Politic. I'm Farai Chideya. Black women are experts when it comes to casting ballots, but while we may show up big on election day, are our names also on the ticket? A new report out from Higher Heights for America, a group dedicated to empowering black women political leaders says despite high profile gains like Kamala Harris' vice presidency, major gaps in representation persist. Joining me now to talk about the report is political strategist Glynda C. Carr, co-founder and president of Higher Heights for America. Glynda, welcome back.
Glynda Carr:
Thanks for having me.
Farai Chideya:
You've been charting these issues of participation for years now, and also really helping black women take seats of power and providing actionable research. What really stood out to you as you went through this very comprehensive study?
Glynda Carr:
What we've seen from our latest report with the Center for American Women in Politics in Higher Heights is incremental gains in black women's representation over the last 10 years. In 2014, only two black women served as mayors of top 100 cities, and we now have eight. We find ourselves with zero black women in the U.S. Senate, only electing two in our country's history, zero black women governors, zero black women on the United States Supreme Court. This year, we have an opportunity to eliminate those zeros and see another incremental giant gain forward by not only electing the first black women governor, but a cohort of black women governors, not just electing the third black woman U.S. Senator, but we are at the brink of electing a cohort of black women U.S. Senators.
Farai Chideya:
Yeah. Talk about some of these races. I think the one that people most have their eye on is Stacey Abrams. And I'd love to talk about her, but also who else? We've been talking a bit about the Val Demings, Marco Rubio Senate race in Florida. What else have you got your eyes on?
Glynda Carr:
As I mentioned, there's a record number of black women running for governor this cycle. So there is current State Senator Mia McLeod, running in South Carolina, an academic, Danielle Allen running for governor in Massachusetts. We have a black woman running in Iowa. Her name is Deidre DeJear, those who have been really following black women running for statewide offices over the last six years, she ran for Secretary of State in Iowa in 2018 and lost in the general election by nine points. So this discussion around viability and electability, that these black women are well positioned not only to win in their democratic primaries, but they're well positioned to be competitive in the general election.
Farai Chideya:
Yeah. What do you think of the whole question of electability and viability and how that construct has changed or not changed in the past few years, including with the election of the first black and Asian female vice president?
Glynda Carr:
I certainly think those two coded and loaded words are reserved for women, and particularly women of color and black women. That when you have a cloud of suspicion around your viability and electability, which frankly doesn't have a political definition of what that is, other than that some political, some thought leaders, some donor champion has been able to put those labels on women and women of color and black women in a way that when you attach viability and electability to a black woman candidate, that slows down her money, it slows down her ability to have in institutional support, and it slows down the ability to believe in her possibilities with no connection to why they think that she's not viable.
Glynda Carr:
Early on, they thought that Stacey Abrams was not a viable candidate. She is now nationally known for her strategy.
Farai Chideya:
Your report also talks about the statewide offices that people may or may not pay attention to on a casual basis. Lieutenant governors, okay, that's a big one, but still lieutenant governors are not always the highest profile. Part of their job is often staying out of the limelight. Attorney general, secretaries of states, auditors, commissioners, all of that. How do black women engage with these statewide offices that may be less in the public eye?
Glynda Carr:
Well, states are where the conversation needs to be. If we're really truly building this pipeline of black women leaders, I'll give you several examples of black women leading on the local level. Kamala Harris, I think is an amazing case study. Here is a black woman who ran for a local office as a local prosecutor and DA. She ran for statewide executive office as attorney general, ran for federal office U.S. Senate, ran for president, but now is seated as the vice president.
Glynda Carr:
She is the most obviously widely talked about pipeline example. But Stacey Abrams, ran and served as a state legislature and then ran for a statewide executive office. So you wake up and go like, “I don't know how I can be attorney general.” But certainly, the examples of Letitia James, the current attorney general of New York. She was a staffer to a New York state legislator, ran for city council, ran one and served. So if we're really going to change again, these levels of offices where we have the least representation, it is broadening the type of women that are running for office. A Lauren Underwood, who's a nurse, who's a Illinois congressional member. Jahana Hayes, who's a teacher, right?
Farai Chideya:
And what about the spirits of black women as citizens? I definitely sense a lot of frustration with issues like voting rights, being so circular over spans of decades and people being pretty resolute about continuing to advocate for themselves as citizens, but also being frustrated. So how are you perceiving just the general question of how black women are meeting the moment at a time where there's frankly, a lot of troubling signals that we're not always respected?
Glynda Carr:
I certainly think black women have put more into this democracy than we've gotten back. And I certainly have heard that framing from my great-grandmother, who was born in 1895 and died shy of her 100th birthday, that there's generations of women recognizing that our leadership has built this country, has built this democracy, but we don't necessarily get a return on our voting investment, the return on our labors. And so I don't think that messaging is any new. We are living in the most politically toxic and racially divisive times of my generation.
Glynda Carr:
I was born in 1972, which is the same year that Shirley Chisholm ran for president, proudly outing my age, because I'm very proud to have been born the year this woman boldly decided to run for president. And she said in her announcement speech, which was on January 25th, 1972, “I have faith in the American people. I believe that we are smart enough to correct the mistakes. I believe that we are intelligent enough to recognize the talent, energy, and dedication that all Americans, including women and minorities have to offer.” And so I too, I work in this ecosystem, but I certainly am an American and I'm a voter and I'm a black woman first. And so I certainly, over the last four years, have been frustrated about the political moment that we are in. But I am always reminded of Shirley Chisholm's word that I certainly believe that particularly that black women are smart enough and talented enough and have the energy to continue to move this country to higher heights.
Farai Chideya:
Yeah. Well, that is a perfect place to leave it. Thanks, Glynda.
Glynda Carr:
Thank you.
Farai Chideya:
That's Glynda C. Carr, co-founder and president of Higher Heights for America on their latest status of black women in American politics 2021 report. We will be sure to tweet out a link to the report at Our Body Politic.
Farai Chideya:
Half a century ago, Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment and sent it to the states for ratification. It stated, “Equality of rights under the law should not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” The Congress shall have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article, but the process of turning the amendment into law requires ratification by states, and that process took years. On February 8th, three Republican senators, Rob Portman, Ron Johnson and Mitt Romney wrote to the archivist of the United States asking him not to certify the ERA. Other Republican senators, Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins are advocating for the ERA to become the 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Farai Chideya:
Carol Jenkins is president and CEO of the ERA Coalition and the Fund for Women's Equality. She's here to discuss the prospects for ratification and why this work matters. Carol, welcome.
Carol Jenkins:
Thank you so much, Farai. So glad to be here.
Farai Chideya:
This has been like a long, slow roll, fast trot with many plot changes. And so the ERA was endorsed by President Nixon in 1972. When it was first passed by the Senate, everything seemed to be on track. What happened to derail the ERA, particularly around first, the deadlines on ratification and getting the states on board?
Carol Jenkins:
When people ask me, they generally say, “Can you just give me the short version of the ERA?”
Farai Chideya:
Right.
Carol Jenkins:
I say, well, it's hard to compress 100 years into a short answer, but introduced by Alice Paul in 1923. So we were closing in on that. And as you say in the introduction, 50 years ago, it left the Senate and went to the states for ratification, and it needed 38 states. Now, what happened was as a compromised deal when they sent it out, they put in not in the body of the amendment, but in the introduction, what used to be called the deadline and we call it now the time limit to suggest they didn't really mean that. And so that's a part of our legal argument, is that it was nothing that the states voted on in terms of there being a first seven-year and then 10-year time limit. But when the 10 years were up, we'd only gotten to 35 states. And so people, many people-
Farai Chideya:
And 38 were needed.
Carol Jenkins:
38 were needed, we only got to 35. And many people thought, “Well, that's it. It's all over.” Except that there were people in the country continuously looking for the 36, 37, and 38 states. And it wasn't until 2017 that, that action began to happen. And by 2020, we had 38 states. Now, we are in this period where we are holding that the amendment has met all criteria, passaged by Congress. It's the law of the land. Of course, getting back to our dear friend, the archivist, it is traditional that his ministerial duty is to attach it to the constitution so that when you and I get a copy of it, it's got the whole 28 amendments and he has refused to do that.
Farai Chideya:
Yeah. I mean, it's basically a federal law to certify this, but at the same time, there's these questions of the time limit on it. But how would you respond if you were sitting down and having tea with Mitt Romney right now, who has said he doesn't want the archivist to proceed with making the ERA the law of the land, what would you say to Mitt Romney who again, had those binders full of women back in the day?
Carol Jenkins:
Exactly, exactly, and the coalition. We have asked for a meeting with him, have not been able to get it. We've met with most Republican senators, all Democratic senators, attempting to get to that 60-vote threshold. In the Senate, we actually have 52 votes, Senators Murkowski and Collins are supporting the ERA, as well as the whole Democratic caucus. What would I say to Mitt Romney? I would say the Equal Rights Amendment is such a simple concept. We usually think of it as putting women in the constitution, but in fact, it puts everyone in. And so there are so many LGBTQ, including trans people who are included in this amendment who will have rights and protections, absolutely essential in this country. If men are being discriminated against or women or however people identify themselves, this is an essential, crucial piece of the constitution.
Carol Jenkins:
And what I always say is that if you are looking for the cause of systemic racism and sexism and misogyny, it lies in an imperfect constitution. It was designed that way to exclude the enslave, the women, the indigenous, and it continues to prevail and cause trouble for everybody who doesn't fit the white male concept of who should be protected in this country, the patriarchy. And so we have done, I think I salute everybody who has worked so hard over these many years to fix violence against women, pay equity, all of these things that we're work working on, racism in the workplace, all of these will be affected by the constitutional underpinning of this amendment, which would be there period, and not subject to, as we this very day are looking at the Violence Against Women Act being reintroduced after a 10-year period of being held hostage. So that's what I would say to him. We've waited 100 years for this and we just really have to give the people of America what they want.
Farai Chideya:
As you think about this moment and you think about young people coming of age today in an era where Roe v. Wade is being debated, bodily autonomy is being debated, the ERA is being debated. What do you say to young people looking at the state of the nation and what they can do to engage?
Carol Jenkins:
Well, we consider the Equal Rights Amendment to be probably the last line of defense for this assault against so many Americans. And that we really need to make sure that it takes place, it happens. I do it for the young black women in my life. What I often say is that we are used to the talk that black families give to their sons. Like, “Don't do this, don't do that.” But very few people talk about the talk that we give to our daughters generation after generation. And that is that, “We love you, but this country does not love you. This country may not think you are beautiful or smart, or are owed the same rights that everyone else has. They may treat you badly.” And so grandmother to daughter, to granddaughter, aunts, godmothers, everyone is looking at the fate of black girls who grow up to be black women who are always at the bottom of the rate of pay inequities in terms of the amount of money that we make and in terms of the options that we have. This a unequal pay day that we celebrate every year.
Carol Jenkins:
The rate that black women are being paid in this country hasn't changed for 30 years. I think maybe three cents in 30 years. It's an outrage. And so you talk about what this pandemic is on Earth, and it is the poverty, it's the hunger, it's the sheer ... People having to work three and four part-time, low-paying wage jobs in order to support their families. We are in an outrageous situation. When I talk to people who are in other countries, they often ask me, “Why does America hate its women? Why do they hate their people of color? What what is at the bottom of this?” And I say, it is the absence of recognition in the constitution, the founding papers of this country. And again, we have to amend that.
Carol Jenkins:
And I say to the young people, you are part of this, your future is at stake here. You have to fight for this. And to know that we are doing our best. Can you imagine for 100 years fighting for this kind of equality, 50 years since it went out? I mean, the patriarchy is what is standing in its way. It was a Trump administration memo that instructed the archivist not to publish it.
Carol Jenkins:
We had a meeting with him recently, and we had painted him as this ogre refusing to give equality to people in this country. He turns out to be a lovely man who said, “I would always thought publishing the Equal Rights Amendment would be the crowning achievement of my career.” And a group of women, there were all women sitting in this room, meeting with him saying, “Well, why can't you do it? Why don't you do it?” We were just meeting with them yesterday, the people actually writing the response to this lawsuit filed by the Attorney General to compel the archivist, because we have met all requirements to publish the ERA into the constitution. So we are at this crucial point and we know that we're close when Senators Romney and company step forward and say, “Wait a minute, don't do this.” So we are hoping that we can breakthrough and that there will be equality in this country.
Farai Chideya:
Well, Carol, that's quite a cliffhanger and we'll have to have you on again to catch us up as things proceed. Thank you so much for joining us.
Carol Jenkins:
Thank you, Farai. Great to talk with you as always.
Farai Chideya:
That's Carol Jenkins, president and CEO of the ERA Coalition and the Fund For Women's Equality. Coming up next.
Hagar Chemali:
President Putin will see that he can play these cards and bully the world into getting things he wants.
Farai Chideya:
You're listening to Our Body Politic.
Farai Chideya:
Each week on the show, we bring you a round table called Sip in the Political Tea. Joining me this week is Eliza Anyangwe, editor of CNN's As Equals, a gender equality project. Welcome back, Eliza.
Eliza Anyangwe:
It's lovely to be back. Hey, Farai.
Farai Chideya:
And we've also got Hagar Chemali, creator and host of, Oh My World on YouTube. Hi, Hagar.
Hagar Chemali:
Hi, Farai, thanks for having me.
Farai Chideya:
I am so glad to have both of you women of the world to lead us through some heavy duty geopolitics, because hey, it matters. Let's begin with the standoff in Eastern Ukraine, Russia, Ukraine, and NATO have all positioned forces near Ukraine's border in anticipation of a potential Russian invasion. It's a tug of war over Ukraine, which essentially translates to European influence. Russia led by President Vladimir Putin fears Ukraine will join NATO. Instead, Putin would like to reassert influence over the country, possibly by changing borders and possibly by force. So the question is, how far will Russia go to reassert its power and what is the United States and NATO willing to do?
Farai Chideya:
Hagar, I'm going to start with you. These are big questions, long, complicated history with Ukraine and Russia. What are you thinking about this crisis?
Hagar Chemali:
It's such a big question. And you know, this issue really stands to change how the international order goes from here and how Russia behaves and if they can see that they can actually get things and get things done out of using their military to basically bully the world this way. So you have the Russians who have lined up, as of now 130,000 troops, along the border with Ukraine and the equipment and so on. Some people are wondering whether they're bluffing. I don't think bluffing is the right word, because should NATO ever accept Ukraine or indicate that that's a possibility, this is something that President Putin has indicated. It's something he's willing to go to war over. And he doesn't enter into wars he can't win. That's not his style.
Hagar Chemali:
And so, while I don't think he proactively wants to go to war. I think he understands that that would be a very expensive endeavor. I also think he wants to do what he can to play the little cards he has. This is a country that's economically suffering. His main card is the military, and he's used his cards well. We are all panicked over it. All of us are talking about NATO expansion, something that was not in the regular public discourse for a long time. And he sees us all getting our panties in a twist. He's got every world leader coming to him, wanting to meet with him and try and figure out a compromise. And the thing is, a compromise will have to be made for him to step down, not just because he's gotten this far, but also to sell it to his public. I mean, he's put all these troops there and he's going to need something in exchange.
Hagar Chemali:
And as you noted, he has these demands that are very big, that world leaders have indicated are non-starters. He wants no further NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. He wants Ukraine to be guaranteed to not become a member. And he wants the removal of certain equipment, first strike equipment, and other things like that are near the Russian border. And the U.S. and the French and the Germans are willing to compromise on other military issues, but not those. So they're willing to compromise on military exercises or perhaps some equipment that's placed near the border.
Hagar Chemali:
But the thing that I keep wondering is, and that I keep worrying over is, not that we can't prevent full scale war. I do believe that we will be able to prevent full scale war. It's that President Putin will see that he can play these cards and bully the world into getting things he wants related to these issues. And so what comes next, if he succeeds at getting something? He will get something out of this. Then what happens next? We've now appeased an aggressor, right? And I just don't think this story will be over. I think the crisis with Ukraine will remain a big issue and he will consistently look to see how he can undermine the government and even maybe collapse it to put a pro Russia leader in place.
Farai Chideya:
And Eliza, I want to go in a slightly different direction with you. I come from a family that is American on one side and Zimbabwe on another side. And so I saw geopolitics play out in how Zimbabwe was treated as a nation and the whole access of affiliations that ... Many nations are asked to choose, essentially, who is their patron. Is it the U.S.? Is it Europe? Is it Russia? Is it China? How do you think that the debate over Ukraine reflects some of these broader geopolitics?
Eliza Anyangwe:
Yeah. That is a fantastic question, Farai, because it's always a pleasure to be on here. Thinking forces me out of my gender bubble to think more broadly about international relation and diplomacy issues. I get to listen to Hagar speaking, and I'm really struck often by the perspective that I have, which is formed by being outside of the U.S. So that idea of who the aggressor is. I was listening to that thinking. Actually, depending on where you are in the world, the ways in which the U.S. uses its economic or military or cultural might, the U.S. has often perceived itself as the aggressor. So it's impossible to extrapolate from that and not think about the sort of nuances in this. But when we speak specifically about Ukraine and Russia on Ukraine's border, there's a clear sense of who the aggressor is in that situation.
Eliza Anyangwe:
To your point, Farai, I think when the rest of the world is looking at it, there is no doubt that they can see the sort of posturing of a leader who is trying to establish himself or continue to maintain his own power internally, but also in the global sphere. We all know, particularly from the African continent, the kinds of actions of strong men who have been around a little too long and the ways in which they try and maintain the sense of their importance on the global scale.
Farai Chideya:
Eliza, next week at the Munich Security Conference, Vice President Kamala Harris is going to hold a series of meetings, signaling the U.S.'s commitment to standing by Ukraine. What are you going to be watching for in terms of the U.S. positioning? And also, how do you make sense of Harris's own political positioning? You know, the Vice President has often been the one to go abroad on behalf of the country. Is there something different in that this is a female vice president and a black and Asian vice president.
Eliza Anyangwe:
So let's start with the second part of that question. You would hope that the vice president's upbringing gives her a specific vantage point that she can leverage here. We saw this expertly done by President Barack Obama as he went around the world, finding points in common with other people based purely on his kind of ancestry and history. So this gives Kamala Harris something that is really fantastic that she can leverage, but also that there are very few women on the political stage in this sort of role that she is in. And there is now a dearth because Chancellor Merkel is no longer at these tables. And so Kamala Harris really has an opportunity to, both as a woman but also as a diplomatic voice, to bring something new to the table.
Eliza Anyangwe:
But Kamala Harris has been a politician who has stayed very much on U.S. soil. Her interests have been very domestic or national or local. Her voice has been best heard in those spaces. How she will own the agenda, how she will shape the agenda in a way that doesn't just seem like they have sent a representative, but actually someone who has a point of view on these issues, I don't think she has done very much up until now to really establish herself as someone who has a strong particular foreign affairs leaning. And so I'm curious, just in terms of how she negotiates that space as someone who has a point of view of her own, but I think she can very much leverage her Jamaican and Indian ancestry to really help her form allegiances and alliances and just points of commonality. And that's a good part of what diplomacy is.
Farai Chideya:
And diplomacy also has the ability to frame up whether or not a U.S. leader is doing what U.S. People want. Given that the U.S. just completed its withdrawal from Afghanistan at the end of August, I have to wonder how willing Americans are to get involved in another world conflict. Hagar, What do you think of Americans' potential risk aversion, and how could that affect the Biden-Harris administration's choices here?
Hagar Chemali:
Well, so not only do I think that the American public has zero appetite for any kind of military conflict, they even get nervous when they hear that it's in the air. This is not the type of conflict, I think where you're going to see American troops actively fight in battle. President Biden has moved 8,500 troops in the area, but it is more a message and it's kind of more to be kind of like backup. They're not going to be at the front lines. Nonetheless, Americans don't have an appetite for that whatsoever, certainly after Afghanistan, but you know what I think the American public doesn't foresee yet and the Biden administration does, but they're not communicating it very heavily because they know it's not going to sit with the American public well, is that if Russia invades Ukraine and President Biden has been very clear about this, that the sanctions on Russia's oil and gas sector will be very tough.
Hagar Chemali:
And when he had his press conference with the new German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, President Biden said, “Should they invade Ukraine, we will put an end to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. That is a pipeline that is currently being built from Russia to Germany along the north, through the Baltic Sea, that would bring in a lot of natural gas to Germany. It would heat up something like 29 million homes. It would make gas very cheap for the Germans. And so the Germans have been very weary about this controversial pipeline for a couple years now.
Hagar Chemali:
The thing is if Russia invades and we put an end to that pipeline and we do it with the Germans and the Germans, they were vague on this at the press conference, but the chancellor seemed to agree, because he said that we would be United and that we would take steps together. That's going to hit the price of gas here too. It's going to hit the price of gas all over the world because if Germany has to then go purchase gas from elsewhere and Europe altogether, Europe imports 40% of its gas from Russia. If they have to go import gas from elsewhere, yes, that's going to hit Russia very hard economically, but then that's going to make it more expensive for the Europeans, particularly and for the whole world. I also don't think that in a pandemic and during inflation that that's something that the American public is going to like too much either. But something may have to give.
Hagar Chemali:
I just think the Biden administration is going to have to ... They're going to have to be very delicate with this issue because the American public is going to be involved in some way or another. It does matter even if they think it might not. If we don't pursue something that's more heavily military. You could see it economically for sure.
Farai Chideya:
And you are listening to Sip in the Political Tea on Our Body Politic. I am Farai Chideya. This week, we're doing a special round table on international relations with Eliza Anyangwe of CNN and Hagar Chemali of YouTube's Oh My World. If you're just tuning in, you can catch the whole conversation on our podcast. Just find, Our Body Politic wherever you listen to podcast.
Farai Chideya:
Let's pivot now to another complicated topic. It's drawing international attention. That's the Olympics specifically, China's hosting of the winter Olympics in Beijing ongoing. And so the U.S. has enacted a diplomatic boycott of the game, citing genocide and other crimes against humanity. Well, the boycott means that American athletes will compete, but government officials will not attend. Before we get down to some of the other issues, let's dive into a very specific question that has been on the minds of a lot of people observing human rights. Chinese professional tennis player, Peng Shuai, accused a top political official of sexual assault. Her social media post detailing the abuse was deleted within 30 minutes. Peng Shuai then went missing for weeks. She has now said it was all “an enormous misunderstanding.” Late last year, we interviewed Leta Hong Fincher who writes about China and feminism and authoritarianism, and she's reported extensively inside China and she had this to say to CNN.
Leta Hong Fincher:
I would not be surprised if she has been personally threatened, if her family members have been threatened. So she's been probably coached extensively to do these kinds of very orchestrated public appearances, and that's what we've seen.
Farai Chideya:
So Eliza, this may seem like a small issue given all of the different questions of human rights that people have been discussing in light of the Beijing and Olympics, but what are we to make of this tennis player who came out, accused a top political official of sexual assault and then was like, “Oh my bad, it's all good.”
Eliza Anyangwe:
Yeah. I really feel for Peng Shuai because irrespective of what her intentions are, she has become ... Her story is bigger than what she may have even meant for it because it serves both a Chinese government that is trying to perceive itself in a certain way and show itself to the world in a certain way. And China's detractors, who latched onto this and were suddenly very concerned about Peng Shuai.
Eliza Anyangwe:
Now, even at the time, one of the things I was looking at was to see how many times people who were concerned about her whereabouts had actually forgotten or omitted to mention the accusation that she was leveling. There was nobody who was saying aside from where is she, but can she, or will she get justice? The sense of support for the accusation, the sense that she is believed was almost inconsequential, which actually, if you think about the courage it takes to use your voice, the courage, it takes to level an accusation against someone in power, and then realize that actually you're now just a pawn in something bigger, whether it's China or not, that must me really disheartening.
Eliza Anyangwe:
So I was really thinking about that at the time, just how little we seem to be saying, I hear what she has said and I would like to see China take actions against this person, as opposed to, has China buried her or is China censoring her? So that message for victims of gender based violence everywhere, which is, do we believe you, will we support you to get justice was completely absent in the messages of support for Peng Shuai.
Farai Chideya:
And going to you, Hagar, the International Olympic Committee said, it's not up to them to assess the accusations and that we should “listen to her.” And I think Eliza really laid out that, I don't know that she remotely could feel listened to under the circumstances. That is just one of so many issues that the international community is looking at regarding China, looking at the question of Uyghurs in detentions, that many people liken to concentration camps, for sterilizations, all number of different things. What are we to make of the kind of credibility of the Olympics as a place of global gathering.
Hagar Chemali:
Already you have for months leading up to this questions about whether Beijing should host these games, particularly because it looks like sports washing, where a regime ends up making itself look good by hosting an international sporting event. They get all the glory and revenue from that as well when they are actively pursuing human rights abuse, repressing their people, and in many different horrific ways. That's why you had this diplomatic boycott. But the International Olympic Committee didn't really want to hear it and thought that politics shouldn't be inserted, but I would argue that we don't have that luxury anymore. That's not this world anymore.
Hagar Chemali:
The International Olympic Committee now is losing credibility, not just because they've allowed Beijing to host these games, but the complaints coming from the athletes on how horrific things are there, the food, the isolation conditions, the policies for isolation, the cold, all of these things look like a very badly organized games for athletes that live their whole lives to compete in them. And so for that reason, I do think it's going to pose a major credibility question to the International Olympic Committee for games going forward.
Farai Chideya:
Well, that's a perfect place to leave it. There's so much more we could say, but no time to say it. So Hagar, thank you so much for joining us again.
Hagar Chemali:
Thank you. It's always a pleasure.
Farai Chideya:
And Eliza, thank you so much for joining us.
Eliza Anyangwe:
Thank you for having me.
Farai Chideya:
And we've been speaking with Eliza Anyangwe, editor of CNN's As Equals, a gender equality project and Hagar Chemali, creator and host of Oh My World on YouTube.
Farai Chideya:
Thanks for listening to Our Body Politic. We're on the air each week -- and everywhere you listen to podcasts.
Farai Chideya:
Our Body Politic is produced by Diaspora Farms. I'm the executive producer and host, Farai Chideya.
Farai Chideya:
Bianca Martin is our senior producer. Bridget McAllister is our booker and producer. Emily J. Daly is our producer. Our associate producer is Natyna Bean.
Farai Chideya:
Production and editing services are by Clean Cuts at Three Seas. Today's episode was produced by Lauren Schild and engineered by Roc Lee and Archie Moore.
Farai Chideya:
This program is produced with support from Craig Newmark Philanthropies, the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Philanthropies, Democracy Fund, the Harnisch Foundation, Compton Foundation, the Heising-Simons Foundation, the BMe Community, Katie McGrath and J.J. Abrams Family Foundation, and from generous contributions from listeners like you.