In today's newspaper roundup, we are reviewing a group of opinion articles that deal with various political and social issues, from the escalation of the "Autumn of Rage in Europe" protests and the questions they raise about the future cohesion of the European Union, to the repercussions of the potential summit between the United States, China and Russia on the interests of countries absent from the negotiating table, all the way to a social question about whether artificial intelligence is able to alleviate the burdens of raising children, or whether it may detract from the human experiences that give parenting and motherhood their meaning.
We begin our tour with “The Guardian” newspaper and an opinion article written by Catherine de Vries entitled “Could the autumn of anger in Europe threaten the survival of the European Union?” In it, she points out that the rising anger in the streets of a number of European countries may threaten the cohesion of the union, if the bloc is unable to show how cooperation contributes to improving the lives of citizens.
The author says that Europe is witnessing an exceptional autumn of popular anger, from Paris to Milan and Madrid, in light of increasing anxiety about the future and the widening gap between the aspirations of citizens and what governments are offering, whether in the housing crisis, declining wages, rising costs of living, or the low level of education and public services.
De Vries adds that this anger may be reflected in the political scene, with important elections approaching in Spain, France, Poland, and Italy, which may lead to transformations that reshape the future of the European continent.
The author believes that external challenges, from the war in Ukraine and ambiguity about American security guarantees to economic competition with China, make European cooperation more necessary, at a time when the ability of leaders to build consensus internally is declining. She points out that the Union derives its strength from mobilizing the capabilities of its member states. A market with 450 million people and an economy approaching 19 trillion euros give Europe a weight that no single country can achieve, especially in light of the escalation of customs duties and restrictions on exports.
The author points out that the Union has overcome previous crises, from Britain’s exit to the Corona crisis and energy shocks, and has shown an ability to adapt and find unexpected solutions, and the distribution of power between European governments, parliaments, courts and institutions, despite the slowness it causes in decision-making, makes seizing or dismantling the system more difficult.
However, the author warns that this flexibility does not make the union immune from disintegration, as revealed by the negotiations over its budget for the next seven years, whose value is close to two trillion euros, amid disagreements over burden sharing, despite agreement on the need to enhance security and competitiveness. While France is pushing towards imposing new taxes at the union level, other countries oppose this step.
The author adds that internal political turmoil may push leaders to act instead of stagnation, so the French president urged his counterparts to reach an agreement on the budget before Christmas, warning of a shrinking margin of negotiation if he is succeeded in the right-wing presidency by Marine Le Pen. Although Le Pen has abandoned the call to leave the euro or hold a referendum like Britain, her project based on a “Europe of Nations” may weaken the union from within, including by reducing France’s contribution to its budget.
However, the author believes that containing popular anger cannot be achieved through political settlements alone, but rather requires effective public services, affordable housing, economic and national security, and a feeling among the citizen that he is able to control his future.
The author points out the paradox of young Europeans continuing to support unity, despite their concerns about work and housing, as 90 percent support strengthening unity among member states, while 78 percent want to give the union greater resources for action.
Catherine De Vries concludes her article by emphasizing that the Union has an opportunity and a responsibility to transform this support into a tangible improvement in the lives of citizens, warning that its failure to do so may turn popular anger at governments into anger targeting the European Union itself.
We turn to the political magazine “Modern Diplomacy” and an opinion article entitled “Shenzhen Auction: What will the Trump-Xi-Putin summit cost for allies who are not invited to participate?” The article deals with an expected meeting in the Chinese city of Shenzhen, which includes the American presidents, Donald Trump, the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, and the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, on the sidelines of the APEC summit on November 18 and 19.
The article refers to the announcement by Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov that the three parties agreed “in principle” to hold the meeting, pointing out that the summit may pave the way for Putin to return to the international arena, and perhaps participate in the G20 summit in Miami in December. However, this rapprochement raises questions about discussing the future of Ukraine in the absence of Kiev and Europe, even though the latter may bear part of the costs of any settlement and ensure its implementation.
The article believes that the summit is not just a Russian initiative or an American attempt to limit nuclear armaments, but rather more like a political “auction” in which each leader seeks to extract concessions from others, while China, as the host country, has influence in setting the agenda. The article draws attention to the calculations of the three parties by saying that Putin wants international legitimacy, Trump is looking for tangible gains, while Xi has the pressure cards.
The article believes that for Putin, sitting at the same table with the American and Chinese presidents, and discussing the war in Ukraine without the participation of the Ukrainians and Europeans, represents a political gain in itself, and his hosting in Shenzhen may also give Washington a justification for inviting him to the G20 summit.
As for Trump, he seeks to achieve progress in reducing nuclear risks, especially after the expiration of the New START treaty between the United States and Russia in February. However, he also needs Beijing’s influence on Iran, in light of the rise in oil prices and the pressures associated with the Strait of Hormuz, as China may help contain the escalation at a lower cost than resuming military strikes.
On the other hand, Xi Jinping seeks to extract American concessions on the Taiwan and technology issues, and his demands include Washington using language declaring “opposition” to Taiwan’s independence, instead of simply not supporting it, and maintaining a freeze on an American arms deal to the island worth about $14 billion, in addition to easing restrictions on exports of advanced electronic chips to China.
The article adds that Beijing has another pressure card, which is the restrictions on the export of rare earth elements, which are used in high-tech industries, and with the expiration of the suspension of these restrictions approaching on November 10, eight days before the summit, the decision to extend or postpone the suspension may constitute an indication of the amount of concessions that China is seeking to obtain from Washington.
The article warns that any understanding between the three powers may come at the expense of its non-participating allies, as Europe may face a settlement regarding Ukraine that it did not participate in drafting, and then find itself required to finance it and ensure its implementation, while China may pressure Japan to modify its position on Taiwan, at a time when Tokyo fears a decline in American toughness towards the island.
As for Taiwan, it may bear the risks without guaranteeing the protection it seeks. It has agreed to tighten controls on exports of advanced chips to China, including penalties for their smuggling, in exchange for an American trade agreement that includes 15 percent customs duties and investment pledges worth $250 billion. Therefore, if Washington later eases restrictions in exchange for Chinese concessions on rare earth elements, Taiwan may find itself facing an inappropriate equation.
The article presents three scenarios for the summit, the first of which is a short meeting ending with a general statement on strategic stability, with a probability of 50 percent, or a broader agreement that includes Ukraine and Taiwan in exchange for urgent Chinese assistance to Trump, with a probability of 25 percent, or the tripartite meeting faltering and being limited to bilateral meetings, with a probability of 25 percent.
The article concludes by emphasizing that the most important indicator may not be the date of the summit on November 18, but rather the 10th of the same month, when it becomes clear whether China will extend the suspension of restrictions on rare earth elements, or whether it will use the decision as a negotiating card to extract a political price from Washington.
We conclude our tour with “The Independent” newspaper and an opinion article written by Lotte Jeffs entitled “Oh my God, artificial intelligence is about to destroy child-rearing.” The author begins by raising questions about Silicon Valley’s insistence on employing artificial intelligence to program aspects of family life, warning that striving to make child-rearing easier and more efficient may detract from the human experiences that give it its true meaning.
Jeffs tells how she sits in her eight-year-old daughter's bedroom, at nine in the evening, to write on the computer the chapters of a book that the child had dictated to her three months ago, amounting to 25,000 words. Despite the exhaustion that this work causes after a long day, she sees the time she spends with her daughter, who suffers from autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, as a rich and enjoyable experience, even if it is exhausting at times.
Her daughter has an exceptional imagination, and is deeply immersed in her own creative projects and interests, whether it comes to writing stories, filming films, or acting. Here the question arises: Why doesn’t the mother use artificial intelligence to write down her daughter’s words, correct errors, format the story, and then read it to her in her own voice or in the voice of the family dog, while she enjoys her time away from this work?
The writer says that she actually tried this, but her daughter categorically rejected artificial intelligence, because she could not tolerate it changing her words or adding to them what she did not intend. The author believes that this position reflects the sensitivity of many members of the “Alpha” generation towards artificial content, and their ability to discover video clips generated by artificial intelligence, as well as their refusal to allow this technology to interfere with their creativity.
On the other hand, according to the author, the world of technology seems busy finding solutions to the problems of raising children, even when these problems do not require technical solutions. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, praised the use of the family calendar within GBT Chat to create a podcast that addresses children’s activities, birthdays, and news, while software engineer Alvin Seng proposed training an audio model to read books in the father’s voice, with the aim of facilitating reading bedtime stories, a proposal that has drawn criticism from parents who fear that this trend will lead to To weaken human bonds with their children.
Jeffs concludes her article by emphasizing that raising children, no matter how chaotic, repetitive, and ineffective it may seem, cannot be reduced to a programmable set of tasks. The experiences that slow us down and frustrate us are the same ones that allow us to build deep human connections, so she does not want artificial intelligence to take away those moments, no matter how stressful raising children is.
