In neither camp: Neutrality and war

Hello and welcome to The Intelligence from The Economist. From London, I'm Jason Palmer.

And in New York, I'm Jon Fassman. Every weekday, we provide a fresh perspective on the events shaping your world.

Social norms for women in Egypt make it tricky for them to live alone, even widows. Our correspondent speaks with unmarried women who rely on plenty of ruses to avoid attention and who strike pacts that ensure homes for all the single ladies.

And for 73 years, residents of New Jersey have been banned from pumping their own petrol. It's a point of pride in the state not to even know how, but with gas prices high and unemployment low, residents may soon have to learn. But first, a new phase of Russia's invasion is underway in eastern Ukraine. Zelensky: "We have already confirmed that Russia is attacking the Donbas." Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed as much late last night. We can now say Russian forces have started the Battle of the Donbas. He said. How this stage of the war plays out will depend on multiple factors, including how the rest of the world supports Ukraine with money, arms, and by maintaining sanctions against Russia.

The General Assembly is now voting on draft resolution A/ES11/L1 entitled Aggression Against Ukraine.

Indeed, global opposition to Russia's invasion of Ukraine has appeared overwhelming. —a perception underlined in a UN vote at the beginning of March condemning Russia's invasion.

The result of the vote is as follows: in favor, 141; against, 5; abstentions, 35.

But the real pattern is more complex. Only one-third of the world's people live in countries that have imposed sanctions on Russia. A third live in places that have been more or less supportive of Russia. Chief among those is China. And the last third are in neutral countries. For those countries, deciding who to back hasn't been a straightforward calculation.

A large number of countries are sitting on the fence for a mix of motives that can be hard to untangle.

James Bennett is a senior editor for The Economist.

Their reasons range from commercial incentives to ideological commitments of longstanding to their own strategic ambitions about the future and even simple fear.

And so let's unpack that range a bit. What are the commercial incentives we're talking about?

I mean, if you look at some of the countries that abstain, for example, from the first UN vote that condemned Russia, some of them import the vast majority of their grain. And this is true across Africa and Egypt, vast majority of their, of their wheat from Russia. But there's a broader concern that the sanctions regime that the West has put in place is going to drive up agricultural prices, particularly in fuel prices. And energy, of course, is a huge input to agriculture. There's a sense that this is essentially a European conflict, but that poorer countries, developing countries in particular, are being asked to pay a price for it. Brazil, for example, is highly dependent on Russia for fertilizer, and the president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, has referred to what he called the sacred importance of fertilizer in explaining why Brazil is interested in remaining neutral in this conflict.

And you also mentioned ideological factors. What are some of those and how important are they?

It varies by region. In Latin America, for example, a number of countries—Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, others—have a history of staying neutral in global conflict. But there's a larger kind of broader, interesting development that has been crystallizing over the last few years, which is that the non-aligned movement that came into being during the Cold War of countries, particularly in the global south that wanted to remain neutral and not pick a side, that movement has been kind of gathering force and coherence again as a consequence, partly of climate change and a feeling that wealthy nations have not stepped up to the plate, have not done their part to mitigate climate change despite having benefited from being the greatest polluters over the course of the last century. And then also the uneven rollout of vaccines to COVID. These things have led a lot of developing countries particularly to begin to speak as one again, and also has created a lot of concern about hypocrisy and self-interest on the part of the West. And that's coming home to roost right now as the US and its European allies try to gather support to isolate Russia.

So countries have one eye on history when they're critiquing the West?

Particularly in the Middle East, I think that a great vulnerability of the West is that they're seen as hypocrites. You know, that the concern for Ukraine's sovereignty prompts a lot of eye rolling because of a belief that the West only cares about sovereignty and only cares about international law when it's in its interest to care. And it was striking, for example, to a number of diplomats when the Iraqi ambassador on the first UN vote chose to abstain, citing what he called Iraq's historical background, which was seen as a shot at the US and its invasion of Iraq. Similarly, the reception that Ukrainian refugees are getting across Europe, the warm welcome they're receiving, is very jarring across the Middle East because people remember how Syrian refugees were turned away.

And a number of the countries that are non-aligned currently, that haven't taken a stand on Russia's invasion of Ukraine, they had longstanding ties with the Soviet Union, right? Do you think there's sort of a nostalgia at play here, a desire to stick it to the West?

Yeah, that's definitely true. You look at the case of one of the biggest democracies that's not coming in on the side of the West here, South Africa, there's a heavy dose of nostalgia, to use your word, for the old days of their alliance with the Soviet Union, the support that they got from the Soviet Union to resist the racist regime in South Africa for many years. And the legacy of colonialism generally weighs heavily, I think, on the West's effort here, particularly in Africa. Where there's a real reluctance to simply sign up for what's seen as a Western cause. But it's also in some cases a function of the fact that Russia is now supplying arms and mercenaries to a number of countries in Africa, to governments that are trying to hang on to power against rebels in places like the Central African Republic.

And so clearly Ukraine and the West would like as many countries to be onside as possible, but ultimately what impact do you think these countries' neutrality will half?

Look, if they don't participate in the sanctions regime, it'll weaken the regime, but probably not all that much. These tend not to be countries that are either in a position to dramatically increase their demand for Russian exports or to supply Russia with the kind of high-tech equipment that it otherwise relies on the West So they're not likely to be able to fill in behind the collapse in Western demand or Western exports. But I think geopolitically, it really does matter. Joe Biden has been out there from the beginning making the claim that this is a struggle of democracy against autocracy. But in fact, the biggest democracy in the world, India, is not on sides, and neither is another giant democracy, South Africa. And that, you know, exposes a big vulnerability, I think, in, in the argument of the West.

Is there anything the United States can do to win supporters, or is the, is the proverbial cake baked?

In the short term, I think the things they can do are simply to apply far more pressure on states that historically have had close alliances with the U.S. So far, the course that the Biden administration has taken is to play the nice guy and try to convince them to play along. I think they're they're probably going to have to play more hardball if they really expect cooperation. In the longer term, the best thing they can do is take their rhetoric about international law more seriously and become far more consistent over time than the US has certainly been in the last 20 years about applying the same standards to its own conduct in the world. And this is really, John, in the end, why it really is in the interests of all these nations, I think, to step up here. Setting these historical questions of hypocrisy and so forth aside, even stipulating to some of them, the fact is that this is a gross violation of sovereignty, the invasion by Russia of Ukraine. This principle of sovereignty is the very foundation of the United Nations and ultimately is the real protection for all of these countries and a standard that they all should be concerned about enforcing.

All right, James, thanks so much for joining us.

Thanks for having me.

There are a staggering 21 million people living in the greater metropolitan area of Cairo. It's the most populous place on the African continent. Which means that finding an apartment in Cairo or in any of Egypt's crowded cities can be difficult for anyone. But the country's strict social conventions mean that for one group in particular, it's harder still.

In Egypt, it's really difficult for unmarried women to rent an apartment either on their own or with each other.

Elise Burr writes about the Middle East for The Economist.

It's not illegal, but Parents normally expect women to either live with their husband or back in their family house. That means that fleeing the nest for a lot of women can be really tricky, but some manage to do it anyways.

So how is it that that expectation for unmarried women is enforced?

Well, first off, family members will normally enforce it. I spoke with one woman who I'm gonna call Layla, and when she got divorced in her mid-30s, her parents expected her to move back home with them, but she told them that she wanted to live with female roommates instead. Like many Egyptian families, no woman in Layla's family had ever lived independently. Even women who were widowed would eventually go and live back with their parents or whatever family they had left. And on top of families, landlords will enforce it. Few are willing to rent to single women because they are afraid that it's gonna damage their building's reputation or annoy the other residents. Another thing that women have to deal with are nosy neighbors and doormen who might report them to the police or their families. And in addition to that, police will often do door knocks on rented flats and can sometimes contact the women's families.

So it sounds as if even if you are willing to do it, you're going to get caught out at some point.

Yeah. One woman I spoke to, I'm gonna call her Basmala, was living with an apartment of other single women, and the police knocked on their door and found out that she was an unmarried woman, and they called her uncle, and her uncle had no idea that she was living alone and was furious. Her extended family actually staged an intervention because they were so confused as to why she wasn't living with her immediate family. They assumed that she must be being abused at home. But she just wanted some independence. And repercussions can be more severe. Last year, a woman in Cairo fell to her death from her balcony after her neighbors stormed her house because they thought that she was having premarital relations with a male visitor who was coming over.

So how do women who are still determined to, to live alone or live independently anyway get around that kind of— well, all those nosy people?

There are several things that can make it a little bit easier. If you're willing to accept having no visitors, that's a rule that a lot a lot of landlords implement. So that's one way to get an apartment. It's also easier to get an apartment if you're trying to rent an apartment in, say, Cairo, but your ID says that you're from Alexandria. A lot of landlords are a little bit more understanding of why you might be living away from your family if your family lives really far away. Other than that, women can be a little bit sneakier. One woman I talked to pretended to be related to her roommates because landlords much prefer renting to families. And once you're in the apartment, you might have your boyfriend sneak in while the doorman is on a coffee break. Maybe he'll take the stairs because the elevator will give away which floor he's going to. So there are little ways that women manage to get around this. One woman I spoke to also was mistaken as a foreigner by her doorman in one of her apartments, and that was really helpful to her because doormen and neighbors tend to only apply Egypt's social mores to Egyptian women. So that gave her a bit more freedom. And in general, there are fewer problems if you have more money.

So often the case. I mean, why does that make a difference?

Well, landlords in affluent neighborhoods tend to be a little bit more liberal. One of the women I spoke to, she bribed her doorman to mind his own business. And oddly enough, paying for your furniture can help. Egyptian police will often door knock on rented flats, and they tend to keep a closer eye on furnished apartments. Because they assume that journalists, activists, sex workers, sort of all the people that they're really worried about, are too transient to have an unfurnished apartment, because that would mean bringing along your own furniture on the way. So one woman I spoke to purposely has her own set of furniture that she lugs around because she thinks it buys her a bit of privacy.

And so is there a sense of community among the single women who want to do this, to brave this?

GHION.AI] Yeah, there is. There are Facebook groups where women can help each other out. For example, if a girl gets kicked out of her apartment at night and needs a hotel room, other women in the group will crowdfund to get her a hotel for the night. And when a woman leaves a flat that is welcoming of single women, she normally makes sure that either a friend or an acquaintance will get the apartment next, because there's so few of them, you don't want them to go to waste. One woman I spoke to, she and her best friend made a pact that they would never live with each other even though they wanted to, because living in Egypt is so precarious as a woman. This way, if one of them gets kicked out, she'll have a place to go.

Elise, thanks very much for joining us.

Thanks for having me, Jason.

Getting gas— sorry, petrol— is a tedious business, and if you're not careful, it can be a messy one. It's enough to make you wish for the old days when there was always an attendant to do it for you. Here's the thing though: if you live in the American state of New Jersey, that's still the case. You're not even legally allowed to pump your own fuel. That might not be true for long, though, and the idea of giving motorists the choice has state politicians pumped up.

When you pull up to a New Jersey petrol station, you just stay put. You don't open your door. You don't get out to pump yourself.

Rosemary Ward covers the northeastern United States for The Economist.

The petrol station attendant comes over. You hand them your credit card or your cash. And he pumps for you. It's a bit of luxury in an otherwise tedious duty.

This sounds like the way it used to be done in the olden times. Why is New Jersey still doing this?

New Jerseyans prefer it. Drive anywhere in New Jersey, and you'll almost certainly see a bumper sticker or a car magnet bragging that Jersey girls don't pump gas, and neither does anyone else. For 73 years, New Jerseyans have relied on full-service petrol station attendants to fill up their cars and lorries rather than do it themselves. And it's become a point of pride for many of them to say they don't know how to pump petrol, and it's become as much part of the state identity as pork rolls or saltwater taffy at the Jersey Shore. A recent poll from Rutgers University showed that 73% of New Jerseyans do not want to pump petrol themselves. So I asked some New Jersey residents what they thought. I think people say that, that it's New Jersey pride, but it's also probably New Jersey laziness, because who wants to pump their own gas?

And I don't think it saves you any money.

I don't think it would— if the gas prices were less because we pumped our own gas, yeah, then I think people might be more open to it.

It would be nice to have a hybrid sometimes, so certain places are there where you can pump it on your own, and certain places, certain people need help, like if you have senior citizens and all, they need helped. So I would say I definitely have someone on.

And what do people do? What do you do with that time?

What do I do with that time?

Yeah, I mean, you've passed through to do this story. You must have got back through at some point.

What did you do with that time? I furiously checked my email and my Slack, and I looked at Twitter. And by the time that was all done, I was ready to go.

Okay, so you sound like a happy customer. New Jerseyans seem to be happy with this. But what are the economics of it? That brings in a new person in this scenario who needs to be paid. Right, exactly.

Well, historically, it was actually the petrol station owners that opposed any change to this so that they could keep their staff on. They were a fairly powerful group in the state. And in the past, it was kind of easy to get labor. You know, high school and college students were happy to take on the jobs which require, by law, a day's apprenticeship. But obviously, increasingly in recent years, a lot of immigrants have taken on that job. I spoke to Gary Singh, a pump attendant, He told me that it's actually getting very difficult to staff, and they've had to close pumps from time to time so that they can focus on one or two because they just didn't have the staff to man everyone.

You can see the signs out there, you can see part-time help wanted because, you know, like all stuff like COVID, everything, many people take unemployment.

So because of that too, we get like very difficult situation on that time to get a And petrol station owners all across the state are finding the same problem. There's a shortage of people to do the job, and some are paying as much as $17 an hour, which is $4 more than the state's minimum wage, and still have trouble getting people to man the pumps. So their attitude has changed, and the association representing the petrol stations have proposed giving customers a choice. In Trenton, lawmakers are proposing changing the law. Declan O'Scanlan, a state lawmaker who supports the reform, points out that support for the way things are are based on antiquated notions about pumping gas being dangerous. We have this ridiculous prohibition, and what we are simply trying to do is give those of us who would like to pump our own gas, either to save money or for convenience's sake, the opportunity to choose to do so. So those people that are worried about this need to stop worrying about what I'm doing with my nozzle and let us have the choice to pump our own gas. But other politicians, namely Phil Murphy, the governor, is a little more hesitant. He's called full service, quote, part of our fabric and changing it a political third rail in New Jersey. Nicholas Cuttari, who's the president of the state Senate, so far is blocking the measure. And he has said if public sentiment changes or if data shows that it would dramatically cut costs for consumers, he would reconsider the notion.

I mean, I suppose in a time of high fuel prices and inflation and the like, that cutting costs would be attractive for all involved.

Yeah, you would think. And that's definitely a possibility. New Jerseyans are known for their pragmatism and skepticism, so they may be swayed, but if they're going to give up their beloved attendant petrol service, they're going to want something in return.

And fair enough. Rosemary, thanks very much for your time. Thank you, Jason.

Lovely chatting with you.

That's all for this episode of The Intelligence. Let us know what you think of the show. You can get in touch at podcasts@economist.com. And you can subscribe to The Economist at economist.com/intelligenceoffer.

The link is in the show notes. We'll see you back here tomorrow.