Thursday, July 2, 2020

Are Black Americans victims of Police Militarization in the US

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Nikhita Gautam

Article Title

Are Black Americans victims of Police Militarization in the US

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

July 2, 2020

URL

Chicago Police

Chicago Police | Source: noahwesley via Creative Commons

In the USA, there are reports of police using tear gas, flashbangs, and many other weapons to fight against the riots which are occurring now in over 350 cities against police brutality against the Black Community. There have been many reports on how the police brutality is disproportionate in terms of race; the Black people are thrice as likely to have violence committed on them by the police force than the whites, and the factor is 1.5 for the Hispanics. There is a first-hand account of a person present in the recent protests who talks about the use of batons on demonstrators.

This, however, leads to the question whether it was the militarization of the police force that caused violence towards minority communities. The police militarization was, in the aftermath of the 9/11 US terrorist attack, justified by the policymakers as a necessary tool to prevent the terrorist attacks in the future. This policy decision led to the military grade weapons and military style training regime for the police force. Some of the states in the US partnered with highly militarized police of Israel for training their police force. Such lethal weapons which were provided to the police force  used against terrorists were gradually used by the police force against common civilians on suspicion of minor crimes and the group of protestors.

The civil right groups were voicing concerns for many years about the use of disproportionate force on the Black and Hispanic Americans, which they blamed on the arming of police with lethal weapons. It was the death of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, who was shot and killed on Aug. 9, 2014, by Darren Wilson, a white police officer, in Ferguson, Montana, USA that galvanised the public to demand for demilitarization of police force. As a response to public anger against the killing of Michael Brown, President Obama set up a Task Force on 21st Century Policing. This task force, in its report put special emphasis on de-escalating situations, with civilians in training and policies, and reduced funding by the Department of Homeland Security for such weapons. However these recommendations failed to have much effect on solving the issues at hand.

The continued use of such lethal weapons casts the police force as a separate, powerful entity which is to be feared, instead of a friendly cop who is trying to provide security to a citizen in distress. Such equipment serves to distance the police from the people, giving them power, and if left unchecked, entitlement over the rest of the citizens. In many instances the presence of a weapon itself leads to more aggressive behaviour and there have been calls to make the police wear body cams to restrain them from acting with disproportionate lethal force.

The racial profiling and discriminatory actions against the black and other communities that was already practiced by the police forces was now being enforced by more lethal power in the force’s hands. A study by Olugbenga Ajilore shows that counties with more race segregation were more likely to request additional weapons, and counties with an African American/Asian American population are more likely to acquire military equipment. Another report of 2017 shows a direct correlation between the degree of police militarization and the killing of civilians in police action.

It can be reasonably said that the militarization, in some sense, inflated the already existing racial profiling based violent actions of police force.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 5:12 PM

Vaccine Nationalism: The Ethical Conundrum in the age of Global Pandemic

O People! Make way for the latest horrendous development of the infamous year 2020. We have straight out of the oven, the freshest item on the menu of ethical conundrums “Vaccine Nationalism”.

It seems like the cure is as dangerous as people dying of the COVID-19. Currently, according to the WHO, six vaccines have reached phase 3 trials, while 25 vaccines are in the clinical evaluation phase and 139 in pre-clinical evaluation.

COVID-19 Vaccine Nationalism | Marian Kamensky via Cartoon Movement

When the pandemic hit different parts of the world, the first response of the humans was to attack supermarkets and hoard loads of groceries (yes, toilet papers too). Vaccine Nationalism is just analogous to hoarding toilet papers, except, it’s just a phenomenon that occurs when rich countries pay for vaccines in advance and hoard them. Don’t worry politicians are not doing what they did not promise: remember ‘America first?’ and ‘India first?’

A global initiative by WHO – ACT (Access to COVID-19 Tools) Accelerator- aims at a cumulative process of R&D, manufacturing, regulatory, purchasing and procurement needed to fight against COVID-19. Unfortunately, the USA, Russia, India, and China did not receive the initiative with much-needed enthusiasm. The WHO also came up with another program called COVAX facility, that aims to provide 2 billion doses of vaccine by the end of the next year for middle and low-income countries.

Source: Brandon Reynolds via BusinessDay

The US compared its operation ‘Warp speed’ to the oxygen masks dropping during the flights. Russia tried to jump ahead, attempting to create a Sputnik moment. Russian President announced Russia curated the first COVID-19 vaccine called Sputnik V. The vaccines are still under trials and need much more necessary testing to work. Safe to say, Russia’s plan backfired earning them international scorn.

Vaccine nationalism will lead to global dysfunction. Rich countries will benefit as they can bid for the vaccine at high prices. Such high prices will lead to a disaster for the low-income countries, adding to their already deficient health care. These desperate countries will have no choice but to buy vaccines driving their economies in an even worse condition. Additionally, a single country having a vaccine will not help the problem in any way at all. Some nations have already gambled their chances of acquiring vaccines by speaking against other countries.

The unethical practice of Vaccine Nationalism is not at all unexpected. A bid against humanity is not entirely new. Similar responses were noted in 2009 when the world H1N1 flu crisis hit. Australia came up with a vaccine and sold 6,00,00 doses to the USA, blocking the exports to other countries. Once the effect of flu started diminishing, rich countries donated the vaccines to low-income nations. A similar situation happened in 2014 when the EBOLA crisis hit.

Politics aside, scientists are staying out of it and trying to work together for greater good. Instead of publishing research papers they are working collaboratively throughout the world. We must not forget that finding a cure or a significant role can earn a lot of scientists, assets, reputation, and promotions. Some lure away and are suspicious of sharing their work as well.

Rabindranath Tagore’s Portrait | Source: Wikimedia

When the search for a vaccine against such deadly disease mutates into a naked display of Vaccine Nationalism, Indian Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore’s view on nationalism becomes an antidote. He believed in an idea of nationalism without borders. Tagore once described in a letter to his friend AM Bose that “the value of patriotism can never be greater than the value of humanity.”

It is a human tendency to compete and nature supports the fittest. How fit is it though to use strong nations’ ability to bully other unequipped nations? How generous is it to help others when they don’t even need help anymore? How ethical and moral is to block vaccine procurement for other countries for monetary and economic benefits?

These are some of the questions lost in the drumbeats of Vaccine Nationalism which is echoing across the continents. It's high time that concerned citizens should demand answers from their respective government to come clean on the real motive behind the call for developing a vaccine for global pandemic in a silo, when it actually needs global cooperation.

Read More