Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - October 1, 2020, Winnipeg, Manitoba C M Y K PAGE A7 THINK TANK PERSPECTIVES EDITOR: BRAD OSWALD 204-697-7269 ● BRAD.OSWALD@FREEPRESS.MB.CA ● WINNIPEGFREEPRESS.COM A7 THURSDAY OCTOBER 1, 2020 Ideas, Issues, Insights SIPAN GYULUMYAN / ARMENIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY PRESS SERVICE / PAN PHOTO VIA AP An Armenian serviceman fires a cannon towards Azerbaijani positions on Sept. 29. Armenian and Azerbaijani forces are fighting over the separatist region of Nagorno-Karabakh following the reigniting of a decades-old conflict. Armenia and Azerbaijan renew hostilities I T’S probably Azerbaijan that started the shoot-ing in this latest round of fighting with neigh-bouring Armenia. Which is not to say that it’s all Azerbaijan’s fault. The killing that started last Sunday is the big- gest clash since the ceasefire of 1994: helicopters shot down, tanks blown up, and dozens of soldiers dead already. It could go the distance — the 1992-94 war cost 30,000 lives and drove a million people from their homes — or it could die down in a few days. But it won’t settle anything. In the Caucasus, neighbouring countries can be wildly different: Azerbaijan is Shia Muslim and speaks what is really an eastern dialect of Turk- ish, while Armenia is Orthodox Christian and speaks a language that has no known relatives within the Indo-European family. But the two countries share a long history of oppression. They both spent almost a century in the Rus- sian empire, got their independence back briefly during the revolution, and then spent another 70 years as part of the Soviet Union. When they both got their independence again in 1991, however, they almost immediately went to war. That was Joseph Stalin’s fault. When he was commissar of nationality affairs in 1918-22, he drew the borders of all the new non-Russian “Soviet Republics” in the Caucasus and Central Asia according to the classic imperial principle of divide-and-rule. Every “republic” included ethnic minorities from neighbouring republics, to mini- mize the risk that they might develop a genuine national identity. In the case of Azerbaijan, Stalin gave it the district of Nagorno-Karabakh (“mountainous” Karabakh) even though that area was four-fifths Armenian in population. When the Soviet Union began crumbling 70 years later, the local minori- ties in both countries started fleeing to areas where they would be safely in the majority even before the war got under way. The actual war in 1992-94 was a brutal affair involving active ethnic cleansing: 600,000 Azer- baijanis and 300,000 Armenians became refu- gees. On paper, Armenia should have lost, for it has only three million people to Azerbaijan’s nine million, but it actually won most of the battles. When post-Soviet Russia brokered a ceasefire between the exhausted parties, Armenia wound up holding not only Nagorno-Karabakh but a large amount of other territory (now emptied of Azerbai- janis) that connected Nagorno-Karabakh with Ar- menia proper. And that’s where the border — more precisely the ceasefire line — remains to this day. I haven’t been near the front line since shortly after that war, so why would I claim to know that it’s Azerbaijan starting up the war again this time? Three reasons: First, Armenia already controls all the terri- tory it claims and more. However, in terms of international law it has no legal claim to it, and the UN Security Council has four times called for the withdrawal of Armenian troops. Why would Armenia draw further unwelcome attention to the fact that it has been illegally occupying “foreign” territory for 26 years? Secondly, Armenia is much weaker in military terms. Not only has it far fewer people but it is poor, whereas Azerbaijan has enjoyed great wealth from oil. Both countries buy most of their weapons from Russia, but in the past two decades Azerbaijan has consistently outspent Armenia on defence by a factor of nine to one. Finally, Azerbaijan’s “elected” dictator, Ilham Aliyev, has a strong political need for a war right now, while Armenia’s new leader, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, does not. Pashinyan came to power in 2018 in a free election, after non-violent protests forced out his long-ruling predecessor, who was trying to “do a Putin” (that is to say, stay in power when he hit the two-term limit as president by moving real power to the prime minister’s office, and coming back himself as prime minister). Armenia now has free media and a popular president. Aliyev is fighting to prolong his family’s dy- nastic rule for a third generation in the face of popular protests. His father, Heydar Aliyev, was a career KGB officer who became leader of the Azerbaijan Communist Party and took over as dic- tator after the Soviet Union collapsed. (This hap- pened in most of the Muslim ex-Soviet republics.) Heydar managed to pass power to his son Ilham before he died in 2003. Ilham changed the constitution to scrap presidential term limits in 2009. In 2016 he even lowered the age limit on the presidency, to smooth the path to the throne for his then-19-year-old son. Azerbaijan’s opposition parties, despite oppres- sion, jail and torture, are resisting Ilham Aliyev’s tyranny, and their most effective rallying cry is Armenia’s occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh. Mobs of anti-regime demonstrators recently took over central Baku demanding action, and this mini-war is Aliyev’s attempt to placate them. It will all die down if Armenia can hold on long enough for Russia to impose another ceasefire. Otherwise, it may get very ugly again. Gwynne Dyer’s latest book is Growing Pains: The Future of Democracy (and Work). Minimum wage should not be poverty wage THE COVID-19 pandemic has shown how we all rely on workers whose wages are too low to pay the bills, even with full-time work. These workers deserve our thanks, but they also deserve to be paid enough to make ends meet. Having a job and working full time should be a path out of poverty, not a poverty trap. But Manitoba’s minimum wage is one of the lowest in the country, meaning the working families relying on minimum-wage jobs are fall- ing behind families in almost every other part of Canada. They deserve better from their govern- ment. The evidence is clear that growing numbers of minimum-wage workers are adults. Nearly one in three minimum-wage workers has a post-second- ary degree. The majority of minimum-wage earn- ers are women, so keeping Manitoba’s minimum wage at poverty-wage levels means more working women are forced to live in poverty. It also con- tributes to Manitoba’s child poverty problem. And despite the commonly held notion that most minimum-wage earners are teenagers working at mom and pop stores while attending school, the truth is that minimum-wage workers are more likely to work at businesses that employ more than 100 people, and they are more likely to have worked for the same employer for more than one year. A recent study by the Canadian Centre for Pol- icy Alternatives-Manitoba office shows that the current minimum wage of $11.90 is not enough to raise workers who earn it out of poverty. We need to increase the minimum wage up to $15 an hour in order to ensure full-time minimum-wage work- ers earn enough to stay out of poverty. Minimum-wage workers are moms and dads, everyday Manitobans who are working hard and trying to make ends meet. But they are strug- gling. Keeping the minimum wage at poverty levels forces families to make difficult decisions between paying the rent, buying groceries, or school supplies for their kids, bus fare and other essential things. The financial insecurity faced by workers is compounded by the fact many of them do not have any access to paid sick leave at work. The lower-paid the work is, the less likely it is that workers are to have access to paid leave in the workplace. This is particularly important for those Manitobans working in lower-wage jobs and in the service sector. The vast majority of these workers do not have job-protected paid leave provided by their employers. According to recent data, only 48 per cent of the workforce in Winnipeg has access to any paid workplace leave at all, and workers in the accom- modation and food-services sectors have the least amount of access to paid leave. Our chief public health officer, Dr. Brent Rous- sin, has stressed for months that workers must stay home if they are sick, in the interest of public health and stopping the spread of the corona- virus. But to make this happen, workers need to have the ability to choose to stay home with- out taking a pay cut if they are sick or need to self-isolate. Forcing workers into the impossible position of choosing between staying home and earning a paycheque simply will not cut it. Premier Brian Pallister was in the news a few months ago saying he is committed to a paid sick leave program to deal with this issue. But work- ers are still waiting to see any tangible results, and they are no better off than they were six months ago. With experts advising that we could continue to see a continued rise in COVID-19 transmission this fall, all workers need to have a paid sick leave program in place immediately. Now is the time for this government to deliver for working families. The pandemic has shown that governments can act quickly on priorities when they have the will to do so. It is time to support working families in our province by bringing in a minimum wage that is enough to pay the bills, and by providing paid leave for workers to help them do their part to stop the spread of COVID-19. Kevin Rebeck is the president of the Manitoba Federation of Labour Designated driver role needs an update THE designated driver (DD) is a successful public-health strategy dating back to the late 1980s. To better refl ect the realities of today’s society, now is a good time to evolve the initia- tive to help mitigate the harms tied to broader substance use and beyond drinking and driving. The promotion of “buddy circles,” as an expanded harm-reduction strategy, is one possible way to achieve these ends. Similar to the DD, the aim of the proposed buddy circle initiative is to challenge norms and promote behaviour change in order to reduce harm. The buddy circle concept, however, expands on that of the designated driver, taking into account other substances and risks — includ- ing COVID-19 and social media — in order to build a more comprehensive harm mitigation strategy for the 21st century. In North America, the concept of designated driving began in 1988 as part of Harvard Univer- sity’s School of Public Health’s Alcohol Project. The project involved a partnership with major tele- vision networks and Hollywood studios. Over the past 30 years this program has achieved its goals, integrating the DD into our language and culture. Since its inception, the DD has been associ- ated with alcohol consumption. That original focus still dominates our popular understand- ing of the program (for example, see the online dictionary definition of DD). Today, as an increasing number of coun- tries explore relaxing their drug polices in response to and/or as a result of greater awareness of drug using behaviours and the harms associated with prohibitionist policies and practices — including Canada, where rec- reational cannabis was legalized in 2018 and there is increasing pressure to decriminalize possession of all drugs — similar to Portugal, a broader approach to substance use behav- iour and its associated risks is needed. There are a variety of potential risks or harms that a buddy circle initiative may ad- dress. Four are highlighted here: - overconsumption of substances; - unintended or non-consensual consump- tion of substances; - social media exposure; - COVID-19. The harms associated with overconsump- tion of substances include overdosing, passing out, vomiting, choking on vomit, sexual or physical assault or engaging in dangerous and/or embarrassing behaviour. There is also a danger of unintended consumption, such as having a drink or other substance spiked by a more potent drug (for example, fentanyl-laced heroin) or via “date- rape” drugs (e.g., GHB and rohypnol). Another area of risk in the 21st century is associated with smartphones and social media. Taking and posting photographs of oneself and one’s friends is an everyday occurrence. These include photos of intoxicated individu- als, that can be (and often are) posted to social media sites by friends or by strangers. Despite laws protecting privacy rights, such posts can have severe negative consequences for individuals. Elements of one’s social media behaviour that are viewed as evidence of ques- tionable “honesty, maturity or moral charac- ter” can result in loss of jobs or job offers, loss of scholarships, rescinding of offers for school admission or other lost opportunities. Now, in 2020, COVID-19 adds an additional layer to evolving substance-use harm-mitiga- tion strategies. As communities lift COVID-19 restrictions, we see young people in particular participating in social gatherings on beaches, at house parties, on and off college campuses, and at bars, typically engaging in substance consumption and related behaviours that can increase the risk of COVID-19 transmission. The promotion of buddy circles as a harm- reduction strategy can address these concerns. The idea builds on the successes of the DD, re- imagining how lessons learned can be applied to enhance the norms tied to socially respon- sible substance use behaviour. It also incorpo- rates familiar elements from the more recent COVID-19 “social circle” campaigns, such as limiting our exposure to others to reduce risk. Buddy circles are small groups of individuals who get together socially and look out for each other’s well-being. Buddy circles can work wheth- er the group is staying in or going out, attending parties (small or large, indoors or outdoors), or going to bars or other indoor public venues. On successive social occasions, members of the circle take turns playing the integral role of “buddy guard” (similar to the DD) — abstaining from substance use and taking the lead in encouraging the group to watch out for each other in order to mitigate harm. This can include reminding members to: stay together, maintain social distance, wear masks, clean their hands and avoid taking and sharing inappropriate photos of members. The buddy guard can also get help when needed and make sure that everyone arrives home safely at the end of the night, whatever the mode of transportation. Jacqueline Lewis is an associate professor of sociology at the University of Windsor. This article was first published at The Conversation Canada: theconversation.com/ca. This article has been edited for length; the full version can be seen at winnipegfreepress.com or theconversation.com/ca. GWYNNE DYER KEVIN REBECK JACQUELINE LEWIS A_09_Oct-01-20_FP_01.indd A7 2020-09-30 6:36 PM ;