We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
Analysis
Members of the armed wing of Nelson Mandela's African National Congress line up waiting to vote in a military base north of Pretoria, on April 26, 1994.
Thirty years ago this weekend, South Africa ushered in its first democratic government.
On April 27, 1994, Black South Africans went to the polls, marking an end to years of white minority rule and the institutionalized racial segregation known as apartheid.
Freedom Day, as that day is commemorated, gave rise to South Africa’s first Black president, Nelson Mandela. The internal protests and violence over apartheid, as well as international sanctions, were relegated to the annals of history, ushering in a new era of promise for racial equality and prosperity.
But three decades later, the “rainbow nation” still faces many challenges, with racial equality and economic development remaining out of reach.
The country struggles with some of the highest inequality levels of any nation worldwide, says Ziyanda Stuurman, a senior analyst with Eurasia Group. “Many young people, in particular, are unemployed and feel despondent about finding work,” she says.
Three main factors have led to persistent inequality. First, South Africa’s unemployment rate is a whopping 32% – the highest globally. Those with secure jobs tend to be non-unionized and, as a result, see lower earnings. And, finally, workers who do well tend to make very high salaries compared to the lower-wage earners, bolstering the poverty gap.
“Due to a lack of economic opportunities and financial inclusion for the majority of Black South Africans,” says Stuurman, “many have not been able to make the most of the expanded political freedoms and opportunities in democratic-era South Africa.”
Since 1994, Mandela’s African National Congress party has been at the helm, but the lack of economic growth and rising inequality may be driving a change of heart among the electorate.
Next month, on May 29, South Africa heads to the polls again for its seventh general election since the end of apartheid. For the first time, polls suggest that the ANC may fail to win 50% of the national vote – which could mean tricky coalition talks or even its exit from power.
Stay tuned to GZERO. We’ll talk more with Stuurman in the coming weeks to gain insights about South Africa’s big election.The view Thursday night from inside the Columbia University campus gate at 116th Street and Amsterdam in New York City.
Special report by Riley Callanan and Alex Kliment
Late Thursday night, the words “New Shafik email drop” rippled through the protest site known as the “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” on Columbia University’s lawns.
The protesters had been waiting to hear whether the New York Police Department was on its way, knowing that the deadline for negotiations with the administration of university President Nemat “Minouche” Shafik was rapidly approaching.
The police would not, in fact, be coming, the email said. Shortly after that news broke, student negotiators returned from talks to report that while there had not been progress on their demands to divest from Israel or give amnesty to the suspended students, they had had a small win: No new deadline to end the protests had been set. The encampment’s leaders continue to demand that Columbia’s endowment divest from any Israeli-related holdings and offer amnesty to students suspended over the protests last week.
The agreement to continue talking, disagreeing, and protesting – without divesting or policing – came in stark contrast to the images of hundreds of students and professors being arrested on several other US college campuses on Thursday.
But what seemed like a de-escalation inside the Columbia campus gates also came after an evening in which tensions were still high outside of them. As in, right outside of them.
Starting around 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, a United for Israel March drew several hundred protesters, and almost all involved were non-students. They came in part because of media and social media coverage of the harassment and attacks that several Jewish students faced last week, in the first days and nights of the pro-Palestinian encampment.
“It’s like 1939 Germany in there,” said Amber Falk, 37, as she handed out free packets of pastel-colored 4x6 inch stickers that said “F*ck Hamas” or “From the River to the Sea, TikTok is not a College Degree!”
That idea echoed comments made the day before by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said the atmosphere for Jewish students on American college campuses recalled Nazi-era discrimination. Also on Wednesday, US House Speaker Mike Johnson came to Columbia’s campus to suggest sending in the National Guard “if these threats and intimidation are not stopped.”
“You know, if they don’t handle this, it might be time for us to form a new JDL,” said pro-Israel protester Joey M, 36, of Brooklyn, referring to a violent Jewish extremist group, originally formed to protect Jews in New York in the 1960s. “If the government can’t protect Jews, we have to,” said Joey.
Meanwhile, across campus on Broadway, a different group of non-Columbian protesters in keffiyehs and masks chanted, “There is only one solution! Intifada Revolution!”
There’s no doubt that tensions at Columbia were immensely high last week when Riley reported that “the campus is unraveling into distrust, dysfunction, and fear.” But in the days since – which have seen one round of police arrests, the closure of campus to non-students, and the encampment itself pledging to weed out external agitators – tensions have come down noticeably.
“It's much more calm now,” said David Lederer, a sophomore wearing a kippah and waving a large Israeli flag just inside the gates. If that name rings a bell, it’s because David and his twin brother Jonathan were attacked on campus last week, supercharging concerns about antisemitism on campus.
“People will still say ‘sweep the camp,’ ‘arrest all of them.’ But I'm not like that,” said Lederer. “Free speech is free speech, just don’t harass us. I feel safe walking on campus again. Even if the change is just for the media to see, I appreciate that.”
Whether this new, relative calm can hold is an open question of huge importance – the deadlock between the encampment and the university is testing the respective limits of free speech, safe spaces, and campus rules, all in the eye of a furious national storm.
Pressure from beyond the gates – which remain closed to outsiders – is still immense. At least 10 GOP lawmakers have called for Shafik’s resignation. Vice President Kamala Harris’ husband Doug Emhoff held talks with Jewish Campus leaders on Thursday. Ilhan Omar, of the “squad” faction of progressive Democrats, has visited the encampment, where her daughter was arrested last week. And adding further fuel to the fire, Hamas itself has expressed support for the student protests.
Meanwhile, as Thursday’s campus arrests elsewhere in the country threatened to inflame protests further, the basic standoff at Columbia remains unresolved.
As the Shafik email drop put it: “We have our demands; they have theirs.”
Flags from across the divide wave in the air over protests at Columbia University on Thursday, April 25, 2024.
Where do we draw the line between free speech and a safe space? That’s the core question posed by the protests and the arrests raging on campuses right now over the Hamas-Israel war.
Of the many complex, painful issues contributing to the tension stemming from the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre and the ongoing Israeli attacks in Gaza, dividing groups into two basic camps, pro-Israel and pro-Palestine, is only making this worse. Call it a category problem.
What do these terms, pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian, even mean? Are they helpful, or is it time to stop using them altogether?
The fundamental flaw with these terms is that they conflate support for the existence of a country with support for the government or leaders in power. For example, does pro-Israel mean support for the existence of the state of Israel, or for the policies of the current government? They are wildly different things.
Before Oct. 7, there were already massive rallies against Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, and they have only grown louder. Are the people protesting him anti-Israel? Of course not. Patriotism and partisanship are not always the same thing. The same person who supports the right of Israel to exist – and may even fight for Israel against a group like Hamas – might just as well protest the Likud government, support a two-state solution, and want a cease-fire in Gaza. Read the popular Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz and see the diverse views and critical opinions on Israeli policy.
The same is true for the Palestinian cause. Supporting a viable, safe, prosperous Palestinian state is the normative position of most governments around the world, but that does not mean supporting the murderous agenda of Hamas, which is listed as a terrorist organization in Canada and the US. Palestinians and millions of others who are deeply furious at the Israeli actions in Gaza and Netanyahu’s policies should not necessarily be equated with supporting Hamas and their eliminationist goals. Are you anti-Palestinian if you do not support Hamas? Of course not.
The same is true anywhere. No one asks if you are, say, pro-France, pro-Italy, pro-Canada, or pro-America when they are debating a specific policy. Instead, they ask if you support a particular position or action of the government in power. Reducing this to a conflict about the right to exist as a country – for Israel or Palestine – is a road to endless war. Making this, as it ought to be, about a conflict of policy and leadership – however deadly it is right now – is the path toward resolution.
With the war in Gaza raging, it is understandable that people are being forced to take a side: Are you pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian? That gives the patina of a firm moral stance, but it plays into the hands of the most radical forces on both sides who strategically want to co-opt the reasonable middle ground for their own purposes.
Among the great propaganda victories of this war are the Hamasification of the Palestinian cause on one side and the Netanyahuization of the Israeli voices on the other (and no, this is not meant to make a false equivalence between the two, but simply to describe the political dynamics).
That’s why you see, say, signs supporting Hamas on campuses and chants that celebrate Oct. 7. That’s why there is a rise in antisemitism or, on the other side, a refusal in some places to acknowledge the deaths and suffering of the people of Gaza.
The category problem supports this dynamic and undermines the rational middle ground where, for generations, there has been a genuine if fruitless effort to find a peaceful two-state solution. It is now parodied as a sinkhole of mushy naivete, offensive bothsidesism, and false equivalencies, and protesters and their slogans shout it down. But it remains the only hope.
There isn’t a lot people can do in the face of such a long-standing bloody conflict – though joining protests is certainly one thing. But perhaps adhering to the middle ground and avoiding the broad categories that help radicals on each side is a small but effective action.
You might think that the one place you’d find this middle ground would be on university campuses, where details, nuance, and debate are supposed to thrive. That’s not happening. On many campuses today, it is now impossible to distinguish between free speech and safe space.
Comedian Bill Maher sees Canada as a cautionary tale for the United States, or perhaps more particularly for President Joe Biden.
“Yes, you can move too far left. When you do, you end up pushing the people in the middle to the right,” he said on a recent edition of his HBO show, “Real Time.”
Maher’s central contention was that the US doesn’t have much to learn from Canada on immigration, the economy, or “extreme wokeness.”
Biden most likely agrees.
Maher’s point speaks to an emerging divergence between the president and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, driven by their respective electoral imperatives.
Winning strategies?
The US presidential race is a coin toss, according to recent polls. To win, Biden needs to woo the one-third of American voters who consider themselves “moderates,” especially whites without college degrees, even at the risk of upsetting part of his progressive base. In 2020, he traded on his blue-collar roots and ran on a moderate message. That appears to be the game plan for 2024.
Trudeau, on the other hand, has decided to double down on his appeal to young, left-of-center voters, who first helped elect him in 2015 but who have since deserted him in favor of his Conservative rival. Pierre Poilievre now holds a 2:1 advantage with people born since 1980, according to a recent poll.
“Both candidates (Biden and Donald Trump) have their separate problems getting moderates to show up while playing to their base,” according to Jon Lieber, Eurasia’s head of research. “Biden has progressive Democrats who think he has not done enough on the climate, or student loans, or has done too much on Israel. It's not clear that it's a one-sided strategy,” he said.
Biden has just forgiven student loans and increased the top rate of income tax.
But he has also backed a $26 billion aid package to Israel, at the same time as Canada has halted arms shipments to Jerusalem.
On the border, Biden has shown a willingness to get tough. “Let’s shut down the border right now and fix it quickly,” he said before House Republicans nixed a bipartisan deal.
In Canada, Trudeau’s government presided over a 1.3 million increase in the country’s population last year, as temporary workers and international students flooded the country and contributed toward sharply raising shelter costs. (As Maher noted, the median cost of a home in the US is $346,000; in Canada, it is $487,000).
Defender of liberals
The Canadian prime minister was always much more of a kindred spirit with Biden’s Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama. Trudeau was invited for a state visit to Washington in spring 2016, when Obama all but passed him the baton as defender of the liberal economic order.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said the moment was reminiscent of the scene in the movie “The Graduate,” where a young Benjamin Braddock is told the future is in plastics. The view was that Canada’s time had finally come.
Biden didn’t particularly buy into that mania, and Trudeau was never Robin to the president’s Batman the way he was with Obama.
Biden did follow Trudeau’s lead in appointing a gender-balanced cabinet.
When the president eventually visited Ottawa last spring, the two men made substantive agreements, particularly on the North American Aerospace Command and an integrated North American approach to clean energy, electric vehicles, and critical mineral development.
Still, there are perennial disagreements. Canada is plowing on with its plan to bring in a digital services tax that would hit US tech companies like Alphabet and Amazon. Washington opposes the move for singling out American firms.
There remains discontent about Canada’s military spending levels, even after last week’s budget announcement of increases that will see it spend 1.76% of GDP on defense by 2028, up from 1.4% now.
But any digressions are more political than policy-related.
The battle for moderates and independents
Biden’s path to reelection could hinge on his ability to win back blue-collar former Democratic voters in places like Pennsylvania’s 8th Congressional District, which went with Donald Trump in 2020.
The president has touted an economic plan to use government investments to rebuild America’s manufacturing capacity, but many voters remain unconvinced after inflation touched 40-year highs.
Polling suggests widespread disappointment with Biden’s performance, even among strong supporters like Black and Hispanic voters. According to an AP-NORC poll last month, only 38% of voters approved of his performance, down from 61% three years ago. The numbers on the economy are worse.
In such an atmosphere, identifying too closely with the left in the culture wars when it comes to transgender policies, diversity, equity and inclusiveness, critical race theory, or on-campus anti-Israel protests would be toxic to Biden’s prospects. He has condemned the intimidation of Jewish students on college campuses. “I condemn the antisemitic protests,” Biden said Monday.
Despite Biden’s falling approval ratings, Trump has even more problems attracting moderate voters. Of the one-third of voters who self-identified as moderates in 2020, 62% voted for Biden and 36% for Trump. There are indications that a significant share of moderate Republicans will not do so again this time.
Recognition that he was out of line with public opinion likely prompted Trump’s surprise announcement that he would not sign a national abortion ban as president, even though he has called the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade “an incredible thing.”
The battle for the moderate and independent vote is firmly engaged, which explains Biden’s tacit acknowledgment of Maher’s point that going too far left could drive the people in the middle into the arms of his Republican opponents.
The story for Trudeau is different, which is not surprising. As Lieber noted, the Canadian electorate is generally to the left of that in the US. Trudeau faces Canadian voters next year, and polling evidence suggests voters have tired of the idiosyncracies that once amused them.
He hopes he can reconnect with young voters and continue to be the standard-bearer of woke culture, prioritizing the interests of historically marginalized racial, gender, and sexual identity groups.
To those special interests, he has now added millennials.
The most recent federal budget focused on the issue of “generational fairness” for people born since 1980, who Trudeau says are not being rewarded like their parents or grandparents. “That’s not right. It’s not fair,” he said.
The problem, as many critics pointed out, was that the Liberals campaigned on a “fairness” agenda in 2015. At that time, “fairness” meant helping the middle class keep more of their income.
That definition shifted over time to appeal to people engaged in the culture wars – a shift from the aspirational left to the identity left.
Millennials may scoff at the Damascene nature of the Liberal conversion to generational fairness. The Trudeau government has recorded eight consecutive budget deficits and doubled the national debt since coming to power – a liability that will be passed on to the generation whose interests it says it is now trying to promote.
One veteran Canadian political observer said the Trudeau Liberals are like an aging rock band that realizes too late that people don’t want to hear the new songs, so they go back to playing their greatest hits.
It remains to be seen whether millennials will give the Godfather of Woke an encore.
Paraphrasing a quote often misattributed to Winston Churchill, the United States Congress finally decided to do the right thing … but not a moment too soon, and only after trying everything else first.
Last Saturday, the House of Representatives overcame months-long opposition from the far-right wing of the Republican Party and okayed a fresh military assistance package for Ukraine. Totaling nearly $61 billion, this is the largest single aid package the besieged nation will have received since the war’s onset. The bill passed the Senate on Tuesday night and was signed into law by President Joe Biden a few hours ago. Some of the newly appropriated American weapons systems and ammunition will begin flowing into Ukraine and reaching the frontline within days.
Congress had last authorized Ukraine funding in December 2022, when Democrats still controlled both chambers. Since then, further aid had been blocked by MAGA Republicans aligned with former president and presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump. The legislative breakthrough came over the weekend when House Speaker Mike Johnson, alarmed by the intelligence briefings he’d received on the war’s outlook and the scope of Vladimir Putin’s aims (and spurred by Iran’s attack on Israel), ultimately decided to take up the bill on a bipartisan basis despite the threat of removal from within his own party. Once it was brought to the House floor, the bill sailed through 311 to 112.
The decision couldn’t have come at a more critical time for Ukraine’s defense. Congressional inaction had rendered the outgunned and outmanned Ukrainian military desperately short of the artillery and air defense ammunition it needed to fend off both Russian advances on the frontline as well as drone and missile strikes against its cities and power infrastructure. This allowed Moscow to seize more than 135 square miles of Ukrainian territory since the start of 2024, especially in the eastern Donetsk region, including most notably the strategic city of Avdiivka in February.
Indeed, up until last weekend, Ukraine was in danger of suffering a major setback later this spring or summer, when Russia is expected to conduct a major offensive in Donetsk. A territorial breakthrough there could have put Ukraine on course to lose the war as soon as 2025.
The influx of fresh American aid will have an immediate impact on the battlefield, helping the Ukrainians to close the artillery gap with Russia (10-to-1 earlier this month, according to President Volodymyr Zelensky), increasing the odds that they can hold their ground in Donetsk against Russia’s upcoming offensive, and making a return to 2023’s stalemate more likely through at least the end of the year. In that sense, US funding is a meaningful near-term stabilizer.
That said, closing the ammunition gap alone won’t be enough for Ukraine to stabilize the frontline. To do that, Kyiv also needs to address its military’s other big challenge: a manpower shortage. The hard-fought and politically unpopular but much-needed law lowering the mobilization age from 27 to 25, reducing service exemptions, and extending conscripts’ terms of service signed by Zelensky earlier this month should help – provided that new troops are properly trained and deployed. Ukraine also has to build up fortifications along the frontline and secure enough air defense systems to protect its cities and infrastructure amid strained supplies due to the Middle East war. If they manage to do all these things, the Ukrainians will be on a stronger military footing going into 2025 than they are now.
Alas, none of this will be enough for Ukraine to turn the tide of the war. The aid package will not give Kyiv any offensive capability this year, and it is likely to be the last major one the US approves in 2024 – and possibly ever if Trump wins the US election in November or Republicans take the Senate. Even if Biden wins a second term, there’s little domestic political support for America to continue to provide $60 billion a year every year until Russia runs out of men to throw at the “meat grinder” and accepts defeat.
Rather than a silver bullet or a turning point, the US aid package is a lifeline that will keep the Ukrainians in the fight for another year, buy the Europeans precious time to step up their defense-industrial production game, and strengthen Kyiv’s negotiating position so that when the time comes to accept the unacceptable yet inevitable outcome of a partitioned Ukraine, it is able to extract the best terms it possible can.
You don’t have to like it. I sure don’t. That doesn’t mean it ain’t happening.
U.S. Representative Don Beyer (D-VA) attends a news conference in the United States Capitol about the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act, in Washington, U.S., May 18, 2021.
Rep. Don Beyer, a 73-year-old car dealership owner-turned-politician, is not your typical grad student. A Democrat who served as Virginia’s lieutenant governor in the 1990s and an ambassador during the Obama administration before getting elected to Congress in 2015, Beyer decided to go back to school in 2022 to pursue a master’s degree in machine learning at George Mason University.
Since then, Beyer has served as vice chair of the Congressional Artificial Intelligence Caucus and introduced a bill to provide transparency into the development of so-called foundation models.
GZERO spoke with Beyer about his studies, his concerns and hopes for the technology, and whether the US will catch up to Europe in regulating AI.
GZERO: Was there a specific moment when you realized that you were unprepared for the challenge of artificial intelligence and wanted to learn more? Why did you feel you needed to take the step of actually enrolling in a master’s program to get the education you needed?
Beyer: I was interested in AI long before I knew what it was that I was interested in, and this goes back a long time, to the early 1980s. I had read and heard several compelling discussions of the topic and got interested in pattern recognition and using technology and deep learning to make sense of big data sets. Going back to school arose first from opportunity, having a good school nearby that offered the coursework to finally tackle something that had interested me for a long time. I wasn’t sure it would work, but I have no regrets at all. And then part way through my course of study, it suddenly became a much bigger topic for the country and the Congress.
How have your professors and classmates reacted to having a sitting congressman in class?
Many of my classmates are unaware, which is just fine with me. Those who know have been tolerant and kind. I am just another student.
What are you learning in your classes?
Mostly math and coding, so far.
Do you feel more prepared to legislate around AI because of this education?
Yes, much more so. Even though I’m not a fully trained computer scientist, I at least have more than a generalist’s understanding of neural networks, large databases, the predictive and generative uses of computer science, and so on.
What are you most concerned about with the rise of artificial intelligence? What are you most excited about?
The big concerns in the short run for me are deepfakes, misinformation, and economic disruptions from job displacement. But there are very exciting prospects in areas like health care, scientific research, management and workflow, productivity, and much more.
Europe just passed the AI Act. Are you optimistic that Congress can pass comprehensive AI regulations anytime soon?
Congress is more likely to take an incremental than a comprehensive approach, at least in the near term, to solve specific problems rather than attempting a large overarching regulation like what the EU did. But we are working on legislation right now with every intention to pass laws.
Anything else you want to leave us with?
Most people associate Congress with chaos, dysfunction, and partisanship, but those of us working on AI have a refreshingly cooperative and collaborative spirit. This is important to get right. Few things have greater potential to change all our lives and the lives of future generations.
Microsoft has quickly become the most important investor in artificial intelligence technology, holding a $13 billion stake in ChatGPT-maker OpenAI. It’s a peculiar deal with a revenue-sharing agreement that’s raised eyebrows from global regulators. But its latest billion-dollar investment is perhaps even more of an eyebrow-raiser.
The US tech giant announced last week that it would invest $1.5 billion in G42, a leading artificial intelligence holding company based in Abu Dhabi. The deal was “largely orchestrated” by the Biden administration, according to the New York Times, an effort to beat back China and gain influence in the Persian Gulf.
“There’s no question the investment was made to try and box out Chinese investment” in artificial intelligence in the Middle East, said Alexis Serfaty, a director in Eurasia Group’s geo-technology practice.
Under the terms of the new deal, Microsoft will let G42 sell its generative AI services and, in exchange, G42 will use Microsoft’s Azure cloud services. It also agreed to stricter assurances with the US government to further cut off China and remove their products and technology from use.
It’s not every day that the White House plays corporate dealmaker, but the administration hasn’t been shy about making AI — and the chips needed to power it — an economic and national security priority. Serfaty said the closest parallel he could think of was the proposed Trump administration deal to hand a stake of TikTok to the US software and cloud giant Oracle. (TikTok’s Chinese parent company ByteDance never sold a stake of its social media app to Oracle, but it did strike a deal to host its US user data on Oracle servers). Plus, the US has recently given massive grants and favorable loans to global chip manufacturers—like TSMC and Samsung—for moving production to the US.
The Biden administration has imposed strict export controls on US-made chips going to China, especially powerful ones used to run artificial intelligence models. The goal: cut off China and hamper their ability to build powerful AI. Tech investments in the Persian Gulf have been something of a casualty of this Cold War over AI. G42 announced in December 2023 that it would cut ties with China in order to keep working with US industry.
“For better or worse, as a commercial company, we are in a position where we have to make a choice,” G42 CEO Peng Xiao told the Financial Times. “We cannot work with both sides. We can’t.”
Serfaty said that the deal signals that the US government is going to increasingly treat artificial intelligence like defense technology, and play a more hands-on role in its commercial affairs and investment.
“When it comes to emerging technology, you cannot be both in China’s camp and our camp,” Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo told the Times.
Latest
Slogans of war
Will US aid help turn the tide of the Russia-Ukraine war?
Rep. Don Beyer goes back to school
Biden, Microsoft, and the United Arab Emirates
