Bernhard Zand

You are currently browsing articles tagged Bernhard Zand.

“The Middle East Has Gone Through Periods Of Turmoil Before”

February 19, 2016 in Excerpts, Politics | Permalink

A dummy dressed up in army fatigue and a mask depicting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is erected in the Salaheddine neighborhood of Aleppo, the scene of heavy fighting. Saudi Arabia and Egypt called for a peaceful solution to the conflict roiling Syria, but said the terms of a settlement to end the bloodshed there must be defined by the Syrian people.

It would be putting it mildly to say that Saudi Arabia is, in numerous ways, a tale of two countries.

It’s an American ally and an incubator of anti-U.S. terrorism. A modern global financial player with a government that executes floggings and beheadings. A wealthy nation run by rich royals in which about a fifth of the citizens live in crushing squalor. 

Within this unusual political reality, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir believes the Middle East is not in historically bad shape. (Richard Engel disagrees.) In a Spiegel Q&A conducted by Samiha Shafy and Bernhard Zand, the politician discusses his nation’s contentious relationship with Syria, Yemen, Iran and his big-picture view of the region’s tumult. The opening:

Spiegel:

Mr. al-Jubeir, have you ever seen the Middle East in worse shape than it is in today?

Adel Al-Jubeir:

The Middle East has gone through periods of turmoil before. In the 1950s and 1960s, there were revolutions. When monarchies were collapsing in a number of countries, we had radicals and we had Nasserism. Today it’s a little bit more complicated.

Spiegel:

The most complicated and dangerous situation, obviously, is the one in Syria. What does Saudi Arabia want to achieve in this conflict?

Adel Al-Jubeir:

I don’t think anyone can predict what the short term will look like. In the long term, it will be a Syria without Bashar Assad. The longer it takes, the worse it will get. We warned when the crisis began in 2011 that unless it was resolved quickly, the country would be destroyed. Unfortunately, our warnings are coming true.

Spiegel:

What do you want to do now that the Assad regime has gained the upper hand?

Adel Al-Jubeir:

We have always said there are two ways to resolve Syria, and both will end up with the same result: a Syria without Bashar Assad. There is a political process which we are trying to achieve through what is called the Vienna Group. That involves the establishment of a governing council, which is to take power away from Bashar Assad, to write a constitution and to open the way for elections. It is important that Bashar leaves in the beginning, not at the end of the process. This will make the transition happen with less death and destruction.

Spiegel:

And the other option?

Adel Al-Jubeir:

The other option is that the war will continue and Bashar Assad will be defeated. If, as we decided in Munich, there will be a cessation of hostilities and humanitarian assistance can flow into Syria — then this will open the door for the beginning of the political transition process. We are at a very delicate juncture, and it may not work, but we have to try it. Should the political process not work, there is always the other approach.•

Tags: , ,

“We Too Want More Freedom”

January 24, 2016 in Excerpts, Politics, Science/Tech, Urban Studies | Permalink

dezeen_Galaxy-SOHO-by-Zaha-Hadid-Architects-13

Some structures survive because they’re made of sturdy material and some because of enduring symbolism. Chinese real-estate billionaire Zhang Xin doesn’t possess the hubris to believe her buildings, even those designed by Pritzker winners, will survive the Great Wall, but she’s hopeful about her nation’s future despite present-day economic turbulence. Zhang thinks the country must be more open politically and culturally, perhaps become a democratic state, and has invested heavily toward those ends by funding scholarships for students to be educated at top universities all over the world. 

An excerpt from Bernhard Zand’s Spiegel interview with her:

Spiegel:

Zhang Xin, if China’s economy was an enterprise and you were running it, how would you make your company fit for the future?

Zhang Xin:

No economy, no company, in fact no individual can develop its full potential today without embracing two fundamental trends — globalization and digitalization. They will dominate for quite some time to come.

Spiegel:

What does this mean for China?

Zhang Xin:

It means that the country needs to continue opening up and keep connecting. It needs to realize that the world has become one. The old concept of isolation, the idea that you can solve your problems on your own does not work anymore — neither in cultural, economic, nor political terms. Isolation means a lack of growth. I grew up in China at a time when the country was completely isolated. That era is over.

…

Spiegel:

When countries prosper economically there comes a time when its people start asking for greater political participation. Will this eventually happen in China, too?

Zhang Xin:

I said before that the Chinese no longer crave so much for food and accommodation, but they do crave democracy. I stand by that. I don’t know which model China will follow. But the higher our standard of living, the higher our levels of education, the further people will look around. And we can see which level of openness other societies enjoy. We are no different — we too want more freedom. The question is: How much freedom will be allowed?

Spiegel:

Today the silhouettes of your buildings dominate the skylines of Beijing and Shanghai, almost serving as a signature of modern China. Have you ever wondered how long these buildings will continue to stand tall and just how sustainable these structures that you have created together with your architects will be?

Zhang Xin:

We have become so quick and effective in building things today. It would be easy to build another Pyramid of Giza or another Great Wall. But these buildings haven’t withstood the test of time because of their building quality. They stand tall because they have a symbolic value, they represent a culture. I’m afraid what we are building today will not have the same impact and sustainability of the architecture of a 100, 500 or 1,000 years ago. The buildings of those days were miracles. We don’t perform such miracles today. So we should be a little more modest. For my part, I’ll be glad to show one of my buildings one day to my grandchildren and say: I’m proud of that.•

Tags: ,

“We Are Only Aware Of His Story Because He Did Something Unimaginable To Survive”

May 29, 2015 in Excerpts, Politics, Urban Studies | Permalink

Rome wasn’t built in a day, but modern China almost has been. In a rush to modernization, the focus has been on the greater good, which, as always, has its blind spots, from the world’s highest cancer rates to life-threatening pollution to a healthcare system incapable of nurturing a gigantic population being pulled at a breakneck pace by the sweep of history.

Case in point: The harrowing story of Zheng Yanliang, who took desperate measures to escape certain death in the world’s largest economy.

From Bernhard Zand at Spiegel:

His shroud had already been purchased when, on April 14, 2012, Zheng Yanliang, 48, a Chinese man from Hebei Province, summoned up the last of his strength to lean out of his bed and reach for his toolbox. He took out a hacksaw. Then he wrapped the handle of a backscratcher in a piece of material, which he stuck in his mouth so that he could bite on it. He did not hesitate. He had thought about his options and concluded that he had only one choice, this unthinkable, monstrous deed. He placed the saw against his right leg, a hand’s breadth below his hip, and began to saw.

The life of worker Zheng Yanliang, which began in 1966, probably would have ended in 2012 were it not for a miracle. It’s a life that spans the entire period of China’s opening to the world, and of the great Chinese economic miracle. Zheng diligently contributed to his society’s high-speed transformation, as both a farmer and a migrant worker, as did millions upon millions of his fellow Chinese, in a country where progress for the masses is everything and the fate of the individual means nothing. Zheng’s story shows what can happen when someone falters in this relentless pursuit of prosperity, and when he falls and is taken out of the running. We are only aware of his story because he did something unimaginable to survive, and because photos were later taken of what happened to him. We know nothing about many thousands of other Chinese who fall by the wayside while working to increase their own and the overall gross national product.•

Tags: ,

“In America, However, Such Cases Are Being Discussed Publicly”

May 21, 2015 in Excerpts, Politics | Permalink

Institutional racism in the American justice system and the sustained tragedy of Gitmo have allowed autocratic nations ready ripostes when called out on their human-rights abuses. China, a communist capitalist country with no tolerance for free speech, has been one to particularly turn the tables in recent years. In a Spiegel interview conducted by Bernhard Zand, artist Ai Weiwei addresses this dynamic. An excerpt:

Spiegel:

Only two or three years ago, China was defensive when questioned about human rights issues. Now officials often reverse the accusation: What about the cases of racism in the United States? What about the violation of privacy by Western secret services?

Ai Weiwei:

No state or society can claim to have established human rights once and for all. What we have seen in the US lately is shameful. I use this word advisedly. If people are being abused or even killed during an arrest, this is highly disturbing. There are many cases and layers of racist behavior in the US — from police treatment to the issues of education and job opportunities. In America, however, such cases are being discussed publically.

Spiegel:

And in China?

Ai Weiwei:

China is at a different stage of development, human rights are violated here much more often. And still, we see improvements even here. There is the current case of a policeman who shot a man at a railway station right in front of his family. At least, there was a public investigation against this policeman (which cleared him of wrongful action in the first instance). Something like this would never have happened only a few years ago, never. Such a case would have been dealt with as an “internal police matter,” no one would ever have heard of it again. This can’t be done anymore. The Internet has established a public sphere and developed a pressure which the government can no longer ignore. We should use this public sphere and redefine — beyond China’s borders — what a government is allowed to do, where its powers end and where the realm of a citizen’s privacy begins.•

Tags: ,