Gong Siliang, Zhang Jiale
The low fertility crisis in South Korea and around the world
According to the public account "Interstellar Radio Waves": A report released by the United Nations on Tuesday shows that due to the rapid growth of South Korea's elderly population, the country's fertility rate this year continues to be at the lowest level in the world. According to the United Nations Population Fund report, South Korea's total fertility rate in 2021 is 1.1 (the average number of children per woman of childbearing age) is the same as a year ago. The annual report shows that the proportion of people over the age of 65 in South Korea's total population has risen sharply from 15.8% a year ago to 16.6%, so the proportion of young people in South Korea will become smaller accordingly. [1] Reuters reported that the uncertainty caused by the coronavirus has had a negative impact on the willingness of the South Korean people to marry and have children. As Asia's fourth-largest economy, South Korea is the fastest-aging country in the OECD and has failed to reverse the decline in birth rates despite billions of dollars the government spending billions of dollars a year on childcare subsidies and maternity leave support. [2]
Demographic transition, family shrinkage and gender discrimination
In its reporting "The Demographic Paradox in South Korea," the BBC wrote that demographers believe that South Korea is currently undergoing a "demographic transition": that is, as the country becomes richer, the population undergoes periods of expansion, decline and eventual stabilization. On the other hand, the average number of children a South Korean woman has (1.1) is lower than any other country (the global average is around 2.5). This rate has been steadily declining in South Korea: from the early 1950s to the present, the fertility rate in South Korea has dropped from 5.6 children per woman to 1.1.
People lined up outside department stores in Seoul, South Korea, to buy masks
For a rapidly aging society, this becomes a demographic paradox. Because a key factor in population stabilization is the so-called "turnover rate", that is, the total number of children born to women is balanced with the number of deaths in old age. Worldwide, the fertility rate corresponding to the turnover rate is 2.1, which means that the fertility rate in South Korea has not reached the replacement level. In other words, in the absence of immigrants, the number of children born to Korean women is not enough to stabilize the population.
It is worth noting that many new generations of Korean women do not subscribe to the traditional notion that marriage and childbearing are a family and social responsibility that one cannot shirk. Not only do they choose to have fewer children, some women even choose to give up on love altogether. More and more people are choosing not to marry at all, abandoning legal (and even casual love) partnerships in favor of independent lives and careers.
On the other hand, although South Korea's economy has developed compared to the past, there is still gender discrimination in this society. According to a study by Professor Yue Qian, a sociologist at the University of British Columbia, the main factors contributing to the increasing resistance of women, including in South Korea and Asia, to "marriage" are "gendered family roles" and "unequal division of household chores": the so-called "gendered family role" refers to a woman's decision to marry, and her husbands, parents and in-laws often expect and demand that she give priority to the family, and in some cases, women have to make sacrifices for the sake of the family; the so-called "unequal division of household chores." It means that women often take on more housework in marriage, and the burden of feeding and caring for children is almost shouldered by them, and after the children grow up, women also need to take the main responsibility for the education of their children. [3]
In addition, the root cause of the lack of children and even the abandonment of children is also the serious impact of the recession on young people in South Korea, and they are afraid of the inability to buy a house and the rising unemployment rate. "If I had to choose between career and raising children, I would not hesitate to choose my career," said Lim Yu-jin, a college student in Cheongju, south of Seoul. "I'm not going to let raising children get in the way of my career." Lee Sang-lin, a researcher at the Korea Institute of Health and Social Affairs, said young South Koreans "have lost confidence that their lives will be better for the future." [4]
This shift is part of a social phenomenon that is emerging in South Korea: the "Sampo" (literally " three things " ) generation. The word "Sampo" means giving up three things: relationships, marriage, and children. The statistics reflect dramatic changes in culture: In South Korea, marriage rates among people of childbearing age, both men and women, have plummeted over the past four or five decades. In the 2015 census, less than a quarter (23 percent) of South Korean women ages 25 to 29 said they were married, down from 90 percent in 1970. According to the United Nations, South Korea's population will peak around 2024 and then begin to decline; by 2100, South Korea's population will be only about 29 million, the same as in 1966. [5]
South Korean President Moon Jae-in introduced the latest government incentives a few weeks ago to provide a monthly subsidy of 300,000 won (about 1,780 yuan) for every newborn and infant under the age of 1 starting in 2022. Starting next year, prospective couples will receive a cash bonus of 2 million won (about 11,700 yuan), as well as increased medical and other benefits. However, the extent to which this incentive mechanism will stimulate South Korea's fertility increase is unclear.
What does global population shrinking mean under the pandemic?
According to the Wall Street Journal, the number of newborns worldwide fell sharply last year, and the combination of covid-19, lockdown restrictions and the ensuing global recession has been a drag on fertility. To a large extent, the impact on the population may be permanent, as well as have a longer-term economic impact. The Brookings Institution estimates that the number of newborns in the United States will be 300,000 fewer in 2021 than the forecast given before the outbreak of the new crown epidemic. The number of newborns in the United States in 2019 was 3.8 million. In Germany, the United States, the United Kingdom and France, the total fertility rate is currently below 2 and is not expected to rise, while Japan's total fertility rate fell to 1.36 in 2019. [6]
Liang Fan, author of "Workers Daily", said in the article "Many countries in the world have fallen into a 'fertility trough'": Historically, when encountering major disasters, people often postponed their birth plans, so that the population growth rate showed a downward trend. The occurrence of catastrophic events such as epidemics, famines, and earthquakes will lead to an average decline of 10% to 15% in the birth rate after 9 months. A similar situation has occurred in previous regional outbreaks.
In addition, population growth in some advanced economies in recent years has been driven by net migration from overseas, and the pandemic itself has limited the normal flow of people around the world. A number of countries, including Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Germany, saw a slowdown or overall population decline last year, largely due to a significant decline in the number of immigrants. In the long run, the decline in global fertility is likely to be a common phenomenon and trend. [7]
In fact, population growth is linked to governments, businesses, and even individuals. Governments need to focus on long-term population growth to understand potential environmental, military, geopolitical, and other risks, and implement prevention or mitigation strategies. Population projections are equally important for companies engaged in investments with long-term returns, such as the pharmaceutical industry and industries related to heavy infrastructure projects. Similarly, individuals need to pay close attention to the population: will there be enough workers to pay taxes to support pension and medical benefits for retirees? Will demographic change enhance global and national security and stability, or will it make societies more unstable? [8]
In the Lancet article "Global fertility rate continues to decline, China will only have 700 million people in 2100, Africa is gradually rising, human beings or will usher in a new world", in response to the slowdown in global population growth under the epidemic, IHME Professor Stein Emil Vollset said: "Although population decline can reduce carbon emissions and food system pressures, more elderly people and fewer young people will also bring great challenges." Economic challenges will arise and social welfare may be reduced. ”
In response to the labor problems caused by the shrinking population of various countries, Professor Ibrahim Abubakar of University College London in the United Kingdom said in a related commentary: "Migration may be a potential solution to the shortage of the working population, of course, the country of origin and the country of migration should cooperate at multiple levels to achieve a win-win situation for both countries while protecting the individual rights of migrants." He added: "Even if the predictions of this study are only half accurate, migration will become a necessity rather than an option for all countries to maintain economic prosperity, and the effects of migration are complex, and we are faced with the choice of improving health and wealth by allowing planned population movements, or ultimately forming an unstable society made up of foreign labor." ”[9]
Given that sustained population declines could lead to dramatic changes in the age structure, economic development, labour force, and migration policies of people around the world, governments are actively adjusting to address a range of problems that population decline can bring. Perhaps, the global population will not continue to grow as predicted in the past until it reaches the limit of the earth's carrying capacity; the global population may continue to decline, which in turn will have a fundamental impact on the world situation.
Citations:
[1] https：//mp.weixin.qq.com/s/AmGCGufc9q2VHr0-JZI2aQ
[2] https：//www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-fertility-rate-idUSKBN2AO0UH
[3] https：//www.sohu.com/a/296156917_120022162
[4] https：//www.nytimes.com/2021/01/04/world/asia/south-korea-population.html
[5] https：//www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20191010-south-koreas-population-paradox
[6]https://cn.wsj.com/articles/%E7%96%AB%E6%83%85%E6%9C%9F%E9%97%B4%E7%9A%84%E2%80%9C%E5%A9%B4%E5%84%BF%E8%8D%92%E2%80%9D%E5%8F%AF%E8%83%BD%E5%BD%B1%E5%93%8D%E5%85%A8%E7%90%83%E6%95%B0%E5%8D%81%E8%BD%BD-11615188013
[7] https：//www.chinanews.com/gj/2021/03-05/9424789.shtml
[8] https：//www.163.com/dy/article/G5MH32RL05119GE4.html
[9] https：//www.sohu.com/a/418431979_245023
The United States withdraws troops from Afghanistan
Last week, U.S. President Joe Biden announced he would "end America's longest war" and said he would withdraw the remaining 2,500 troops from Afghanistan starting May 1. The Biden administration said the withdrawal would be completed by Sept. 11 at the latest, the 20th anniversary of al-Qaida's terrorist attacks on the United States. NATO announced it would withdraw nearly 10,000 soldiers, 7,000 of them non-U.S. soldiers, on the same schedule.
In a later speech, Biden said: "We cannot continue the cycle of 'increasing current military investment in Afghanistan in order to create the ideal environment for the withdrawal of troops' and expect a different outcome." This seems to confirm the Guardian's comment that Biden's decision marks the end of an arrogance characteristic of The United States.
For the U.S. homeland, the biggest concern about the withdrawal is whether the move will make Afghanistan a hotbed for terrorists again. According to the New York Times, U.S. government agencies say they do not believe al-Qaida or other terrorist groups pose a direct threat to the United States from Afghanistan, while the Congress-mandated Afghan Research Group this year said the withdrawal "could lead to a resurgence of terrorist threats against the U.S. homeland within 18 months to 3 years." "This means that at least the terrorist threat will not recur immediately, but whether it constitutes a threat in the long run is still controversial."
US Secretary of State Blinken visited Afghanistan to discuss the withdrawal of US troops with a number of senior officials. On April 15, 2021, local time, in Kabul, Afghanistan, Abdul, chairman of the Afghan High Level committee for national reconciliation, met with US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken.
Turbulent Afghanistan
Over the past 20 years, afghan civilians have paid an alarming price, and since 2020, the news of the U.S. withdrawal has exacerbated civilian casualties. Violence and seemingly haphazard attacks on civilians have surged since former U.S. President Donald Trump's administration reached an agreement with the Taliban promising Washington's withdrawal on May 1, according to the Associated Press article "U.S. Military Withdrawal Will Leave a Volatile Afghanistan." According to the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, more than 1,700 civilians were killed or injured in attacks in the first three months of 2021, a 23 percent increase over the same period last year. In addition to the most immediate casualties, there is growing fear that once the Americans leave Afghanistan, Afghanistan will fall into a more brutal civil war and even be taken over by the Taliban.
The article mentioned that the departure of U.S. troops will put the existing Afghan government in trouble. According to Torek Farhadi, a former Afghan government adviser, the Taliban are likely to negotiate with local afghan leaders and wait for Americans to leave, further weakening and isolating President Ashraf Ghani, which will inevitably lead Afghanistan to a more complex internal conflict.
With regard to the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces, most Afghans fear it would upset the balance between the warlords. Over the past 20 years, many warlords have amassed considerable wealth and supported well-equipped militias, and in this case, Afghanistan is likely to relapse into the brutal civil war of 1992-1996, which gave the Taliban the opportunity to rise.
While the United States has brought some support to Afghanistan over the past 20 years and contributed to improving the situation of Afghan women, it is undeniable that these gains are fragile and the future is highly uncertain. In terms of benefits, the U.S. withdrawal leaves Afghanistan with more intense internal divisions than it did 20 years ago, which has also led to a stronger hostility to the United States, which is no longer the crude assumption of the West that it used to be.
The unfinished war
For those who want to truly see the United States emerge from the graveyard of empire, Biden's delayed withdrawal may not be worth cheering. The Jacobin magazine article "Biden did not end the war in Afghanistan" wrote that in the worst case, Biden may be for the sake of political achievements to loudly declare the end of the war, and secretly try to find a way to let it continue, the most common means used by politicians is endless delay. For example, in 2012, Mr. Obama promised that the war would end by 2014, but in 2016 he delayed plans to withdraw troops from Afghanistan on the grounds that "instability in Afghanistan could still be a hotbed for terrorists."
The authors of the article estimate that at best, Biden is buying time for an orderly withdrawal. But considering that his previous delay has been wasted three months, this explicit violation of Trump's agreement with the Taliban also draws threats from the latter. In addition to refusing to join the Afghan government in Turkey for a april 24-May 4 peace summit, the Taliban claimed to launch attacks on U.S. troops still stranded in Afghanistan after the original agreement deadline, which was may 1.
On the other hand, with the launch of the Taliban's annual spring offensive, it is likely that there will be a surge in attacks in Afghanistan in the coming months, which is likely to slow the pace of US withdrawal from Afghanistan, and it is also likely to further escalate the situation between the US military and the Taliban's back-and-forth retaliation.
Even if Biden nominally fulfills his pledge to withdraw his troops by September, according to anonymous "current U.S. officials" in The New York Times, the Biden administration "is likely" to replace the official U.S. military with spies, special forces, and mercenaries, and anonymous officials said that the Biden administration's plan is to deploy U.S. troops in neighboring countries in Afghanistan and then use drones and planes to kill suspects, as the United States did in the Middle East, which explains why the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan cannot be called the end of the war.
Cite the article
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/15/the-guardian-view-on-the-afghanistan-withdrawal-an-unwinnable-war
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/06/obama-delays-us-troop-withdrawal-afghanistan-al-qaida
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2021/04/joe-biden-war-afghanistan-troops-trump-media
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/04/14/afghanistan-taliban-us-troop-withdrawal/
https://apnews.com/article/world-news-afghanistan-troop-withdrawals-islamabad-015703a459088547531a755819897040
Editor-in-Charge: Han Shaohua
Proofreader: Luan Meng