21 October 2008

Building Empires…

About a week ago I was walking through town with a friend and as we often do we ended up talking about political and related issues. This particularly conversation turned toward the topic of empires – they come and they go. This is what has happened throughout history and it will continue to happen. One particular question that came to mind for me was to what degree we should laud the empires of the past and their achievements.

So why on earth did this come to mind? Well, it’s not unusual to look with amazement at the achievements, chronicles and artefacts of the so-called great empires of the past – such as the Egyptians, the Chinese and the Romans. Yet at the same time it is quite common for people to feel animosity toward economic and/or political empires that indirectly or directly impact their lives. So my question is how do we hold these conflicting perspectives together? Can we despise those empires who attempt to gain so much control now and still sing the praises of empires built with so much blood mix in with the cement? This is a question I ask myself too – after all I too have find myself in awe of the achievements of these empires.

Not really anti-USA?

From time to time I find myself in the middle of a conversation regarding the state of our little global village, whether specific issues in specific locations or overall trends. Based on the responses I occasionally get to the things I say and the opinions I share I realise that people regard me as being anti-USA, so I thought I should clarify a few things.

While I’m not going to look at it at length there is a well-known line from the USA’s Declaration of Independence that reads as follows: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. As with any idea or belief someone, somewhere will try and find problems with this statement but there is something striking about this idea of equality among men at that time in history – or at any time I guess. After all, it flies in the face of so much of the outworking of human ambition. Along with other ideals on which the republic was founded I find this to be something essential and undeniable, although it is in the sporadic and limited applications of these beliefs that my concerns are based.

When “all men” becomes all white men or all American men then I have a problem. When the “unalienable rights” are perceived in such a way or extend so far that the pursuit thereof infringes on the rights of others then something is wrong. When someone’s life is more important or valuable than that of another based on where they are from, then someone has gone off-track. Or, when someone’s pursuit of happiness results in someone else’s unhappiness then we have to question the process and the legitimacy of that happiness. There is a strong-foundation at the base of the USA but I, like many others, believe that some of the builders have not stuck to the original blueprint.

16 October 2008

Babies, puppies & New Year’s Day…

Every Wednesday afternoon I have a 2-hour English conversation class at a local company and in order to get there I can walk down a street that has a pet store, usually with a variety of puppies just inside the window and more inside the store. Sometimes just standing there for a few minutes watching those balls of fur puts a smile on my face. So what does that have to do with babies and New Year’s Day?

As I walked away from the store one day I started wondering why people like puppies and came up with one and surely not the only answer – at the very least this applies to me. They are new, innocent and unspoilt among other things. Obviously though I’d say that the “cute factor” is the main reason. So once again what about babies and New Year’s Day? Well I think that apart from the obvious and inherent cuteness of babies there is this idea of newness coming into play when we get excited about babies or 1 January. I think most people would agree that the world we live in is seriously troubled at the best of times, even if Hollywood tries to sell us something different. So, when I see a baby, a puppy or arrive on 1 January there is a sense that regardless of everything going on in the world here is something that is new and unspoilt. There is potential for all kinds of great things that flies in the face of the challenges that life can throw at us. I would even go beyond that and say that especially a baby or a New Year can cause us to dream, to hope and for some to pray for something more, something better…

15 October 2008

With Friends like These…


In global politics there are often numerous words and terms been thrown around to describe supposedly undesirable elements – state sponsors of terror, rogue states and dictator among other things. But recently I’ve been thinking about a very simple word that is seemingly easy to understand – enemy. But what is an enemy?

One definition I came across suggests that an enemy is “a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent” or more generally speaking it is “something destructive or injurious in its effects”. Now I look at the state of global politics and economics (after all, we can’t separate those two) and I have to wonder who the real enemies of freedom are? Sure there are countries who perhaps don’t live up to the expectations of others within their own borders, but whose economic and other policies keep the rest of the world on the back foot? Yes it s true that this is a complex issue but at the very least there are those who claim to be on the side of freedom and democracy whose actions can at times be regarded as “antagonistic activities” and or are “destructive or injurious in its effects” even though they claim benevolence.

When then hear terms like “leaders of the free world” or “defenders of freedom” I can’t help but laugh (at the very least) at the gall of those using these terms. And, I have to ask the question: who are the real enemies of global freedom and human rights? After all, with friends like these who needs enemies?

28 September 2008

Surprise, surprise...

In the USA, at least from John McCain at the moment, there is some talk about a league of democracies with common interests and values (whatever that mean), and who control large economic resources to act against Iran. His reason for this is that Russia is preventing certain actions in the UN Security Council. Once again when something works it’s great, but when it’s not working they toss it out… One question on my mind is who is going tend up in the line of fire next?

27 September 2008

Consistently Inconsistent…

Recently I have been keeping track of the events in the USA’s economy and the attempts that are being planned and/or made to “bailout” their economy. Apart from the fact that these events in and of themselves are fascinating and do in fact have global repercussions, it is the USA government’s response that I find the most fascinating.

Over the years the USA has been at the forefront of the development of and advocating for a global (free-market and/or capitalist) economy as well as numerous efforts to bring democracy to various corners of the globe. What I find interesting though is the limited and very selective applications of these ideologies at times – with the one consistency some would argue is that the USA is better off. What am I talking about? Although the USA brought democracy (to some degree) to different countries they, with the assistance of other countries, have prevented a true global democracy – I’m once again referring to the existence of the veto power of the UN Security Council. There are other, some would say debatable, examples where it has been ensured that introduced democracies are USA friendly, but that’s something I’m not going to go into right now.

Then there is the $700 billion proposed bailout of the USA economy. It is being sold as something that is good for the world, but it has to be argued that it also attempts to ensure the USA maintains its position as a global economic leader – a position that is coming under threat more and more from the EU, Chinese and Indian economies. Then there is the irony of taking an arguably socialist action in an attempt to shore-up a falling economy. Some say that the number don’t lie and while I don’t always agree with this the fact that this bailout could free the entire African continent from its foreign debt 3.5 times over is definitely eye-opening and at the very least this has to cause us to question the USA’s claims of benevolence. I’ll close of with two comments I came across recently regarding this plan-of-action. Allan Chernoff (CNN, Senior Correspondent) said that this plan is “throwing capitalism on its head” and a US Senator Jim Bunning said that this is “socialism and it is un-American”.

23 September 2008

Changes for our fledgling democracy…

So, what important thing could Zuma and his supporters have done for democracy in South Africa? Well, according to some reports we may see a split in the ANC as a result of Mbeki’s removal from office, with one report stating that Mbeki’s mother is in support of the idea to form a new political party.

While, others may not share my view on this I think this is a great thing for our fledgling democracy and something that I have expected and hope for over the past few years. To date there has not been any serious opposition to the ANC on a national level and that could be the very thing it needs to hold it accountable for its actions or lack thereof. Furthermore, with the more than two-thirds of votes cast in any election (as it achieved in the last election) the ANC has the power to make changes to the constitution – a power that fortunately it has not acted on so far. These are my reasons for hoping for a split and potentially a stronger opposition.

My main reason for expecting this spilt was simple. The bloc of voters supporting the ANC is huge (nearly 70% of votes cast in the last election) and the differences post-1994 experiences within this bloc is vast. On the one end of the scale there are those who have become millionaires through various means (occasionally with the assistance political contacts and the benefits of Black Economic Empowerment) while on the other end of the scale there are those who as yet do not have basic necessities such as running water. How does anybody hold such a disparate group of people together under one banner and maintain South Africa’s position and good name on the world stage? I would say it’s a/n (near) impossible task.

I’m realistic though and I know that any significant change or shift in power could likely arrive coupled with unrest and violence – something South Africa has seen all too often and which nobody needs to face again.


PS: I neither support Zuma nor Mbeki, but I feel that change was inevitable and necessary...

More thoughts on the “Rainbow Nation” …


In a previous entry I expanded on my South African roots and view, mentioning that I would have more to say at some later point. Well, I think the events of the past few weeks resulting in President Thabo Mbeki's resignation make this a good time to say something – these are my views, perspectives and thoughts as a (global) nomad born in South Africa. Forgive me for quoting a movie but there’s a line in the recent Batman film that goes as follows: “You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain”. I would say that this can be said of numerous leaders, heroes and freedom-fighters throughout history including Mbeki. There is so much being said and written about the current state of affairs that I’m going to stick to two thoughts (after all I’m not much more than an interested observer).

Without excusing any of the questionable actions his has taken over the course of his years in office I will say that at least to some degree he was almost doom to fail. After the Mandela years (a transition period) I believe there were at least some expectations of the promised RDP getting into full-swing under Mbeki – but how do you turn around over three centuries of oppression in just a few years? Call me a cynic, but I doubt that anyone would have been able to match the expectations of the people with the resources available. Theoretically one could say that someone might have been able to a better job, but Mbeki was the man at the helm. So he was bound to disappoint on some level and yes he has been accused of not doing enough to turn poverty around – personally I’d be interesting to hear ways in which poverty may have been successfully eradicated or at least lessened in this short space of time. I really would like to hear these opinions, if there are any because I’m trying to understand this whole arena a bit better.

Another criticism of Mbeki is that he has been too much of a thinker (as you can see from the cartoon at the beginning of this entry). At the very least I have to wonder if the very experiences that prepared and enabled him to lead the nation and the ANC (such as his life and education abroad), also did irrevocable damage to his connection with the populace – a major advantage Zuma has over him. In the end Mbeki appears to have failed his party because they believe he didn’t do the job he needed to do (or was that just an excuse to get him out of the way). This is a complex issue and one that the most informed and educated people will struggle to summarise in a few paragraphs, but these are my thoughts. One other thing that comes to mind is that in removing Mbeki from office Zuma and his supporters may have inadvertently done something important for democracy in South Africa – something that I have been expecting for a few years now… more about that in my next entry!

Below are links to a few articles on recent developments:

"Mbeki failed South Africa, says UK paper"


"It's unfair and unjust - Mbeki"

"Mbeki down but not out"

"Mbeki appeal not far-fetched: expert"

13 September 2008

Thoughts on the “Rainbow Nation”…

As I’ve said previously (in a different blog) coming from South Africa (RSA) travelling through South America means that I’m a rare thing. When I say where I’m from people are often really surprised, although this is at least in part because they sometimes assume I’m Brazilian based on my complexion etc (and my not-at-all-that-fluent Spanish). Additionally, based on my time here I’d say that I’m rare amongst the few South Africans traversing this continent in that I’m not white. As a result I’m often asked my opinions on the state of South Africa, its leaders and the future of the nation – I usually get the impression that the majority of (but not all) white South Africans people come across around the world have similar negative feelings about the state the country is in. So I thought I’d offer a few thoughts on “The Rainbow Nation” – although just a few, with some more to come at a later stage…

Two topics that come up in conversation quite often are affirmative action (AA) and the current state president Thabo Mbeki (more on him later). One of the questions that often get asked is if AA isn’t simply the old policy flipped around, so now it’s the white who are being discriminated against? I can understand this thinking, although the reality is that I believe you have to take the demographic and economic realities into account. Firstly, those who suffered under the apartheid policies and now (in theory) benefit from AA are by far the largest population group in the country, yet they are still the poorest in terms of income and wealth per capita. Additionally, those who don’t benefit from AA are on average still better off economically although there are definitely exceptions. So while some have the idea that we should move forward with an equal playing-field, I’d say that there is no equal playing field with some concerted reconstruction. I guess I look at it from my perspective as a coloured person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloured). While my parents and those before them were discriminated against under apartheid policies they did not suffer as much as black South Africans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_(people)#South_Africa). So what’s my point?

At college I met a Tswana guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tswana) who had the same level of education I had (ie: university qualified) and had a similar number of years work experience. Some would say were their no AA in place we would be entering the work-place on the same footing with the same opportunities, but this is no the case. My family’s better economic status and history (due to a combination of the more favourable treatment received by coloured people during apartheid and my father’s hard-work) resulted in my having a better network of contacts that he has – and sometimes it is who you know that counts. Additionally, I had the advantage of things often taken for granted such as more comfortable living conditions and my own car (potentially also products of the different treatment under apartheid). So these are the things I take into account. I know I have been fortunate and I know there are those who still suffer in different ways because of RSA’s past and the challenges of the present. These are my reflections…

11 September 2008

The United Nation – a house divided against itself…


“Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.”



There is something profoundly true and yet so simple in what Jesus said in this instance, to the point even the highly respected Abraham Lincoln quoted it in a memorable albeit controversial speech one and a half centuries ago. But, I’m not going to talk theology or US politics right now (at least not directly).

Among there various things going on in my mind lately, including where in the world I think I’m going to spend Christmas, I have found the issue of humanitarian aid and volunteerism on my mind lately. I think is at least in part do to the amount of volunteers I come across in South America – but that’s a topic for another time. The specific household I have been thinking about lately is the United Nations (and I’m sure many will agree with the cartoon I’ve included). There are times when I can’t help feeling bemused by this organisation, supposedly in existence to bring the nations of the world together. Yet with the occasionally contentious issue of the veto power held by the members of the Security Council we see an organisation that is more of a spectators club for many nations who are allowed to participate and who need their voices validated by those in power.

As a result I can’t help thinking that humanitarian agencies existing under this banner have are somewhat like a dog chasing its own tail – going nowhere at top speed, but round in circles. That is, I am not saying that they don't do good work on the ground. After all the structure enables those in power to hold onto that power and one only needs to listen carefully to the news to hear the amount of times that humanitarian aid and/or debt relief comes with political conditions or favours to those giving the aid. And, in the mean time it’s not a new notion that the gap between the rich and poor increases constantly (see the links below to articles from the last decade) yet the world seems to carry on doing things the same way while expecting different results. In fact the "income ratio of the one-fifth of the world's population in the wealthiest countries to the one-fifth of the world's population in the poorest went from 30 to 1 in 1960 to 74 to 1 in 1995".

I have neither the time nor information to go into other issues such as the “Nuke Club” (also known as the “Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty”) right now, but there seems to be a pattern where those who have want more – be it money or power. And at some point, something is going to give. Or what, do you think?
Enough said, for now…

http://globalization.icaap.org/content/v1.1/jeremyseabrook.html

On this day in 2008; yes TODAY…

Today, across the USA and possibly parts of the world too people are remembering the tragic and arguably preventable events which occurred on Tuesday, 11 September 2001 and which resulted in the deaths of nearly three thousand people. Without a doubt many of us remember those images of the Twin Towers and perhaps even remember where we were when we first heard.

But I thought I’d take on this opportunity to remember another tragic and preventable occurrence taking place today – the death of 16,000 children due to poverty, hunger, malnutrition and everything else that goes with it. But I guess that’s not really news-worthy, not to mention that those children are somewhere else out of sight so probably out of mind, not so?

Anyway, I just wanted to get that off my chest and air this sense of frustration I feel with the systematic impoverishment of those who don’t seem to matter. Some might ask me what I’m doing about this. Well, nothing directly at the moment but I guess I’m increasing my awareness; I’m educating myself, for now. But, for now I’ll close with something from a well-known (and occasionally controversial) 21st century leader…

"where you [are from] should not decide whether you live or whether you die..."

PS: There will be another 16,000 tomorrow…

19 August 2008

Don't panic!!

So I came across something a bit more positive regarding South Africa in the past day or so. Apparently an internal email sent by a Managing Director to the staff members at his company earlier this year has been turned into a book. The aim of the book it seems is to encourage South Africans about their country and get them to focus on what is good and not just the bad news that sells newspapers.


I just read the contents of the email (use the address at the bottom of this entry to read it) and while the message is really simple it is also true. I guess some people might then say “well, why are you wondering around the world instead of helping to rebuild South Africa?” The truth is that I am where I need to be right now and one day I will return, but it’s encouraging to that the kind of zealous ignorance displayed in the videos I mentioned in my previous entry is not as prevalent as that South African might imply. Anyway, so take a look at what the email and the book etc are all about and make up your own mind about South Africa’s future.

http://www.iburst.co.za/default.aspx?link=new_latest_news&blogs=100

18 August 2008

Who is to blame?

I am a South African guy – I’m not sure if I’ve mentioned that before – but I have not lived there for a while. I’ve been living in a few different countries and I have not only been learning about the world around me, but also a bit more about myself. So, recently I have been watching a few videos on www.youtube.com regarding the state of the nation in South Africa (RSA), where we have been and the progress (or lack thereof) that has been made in recent years.

Saying that these videos have been ‘eye-opening’ would not be the truth because there aren’t any significantly new ideas or opinions coming out of these videos. What I do find interesting is to see this kind of ‘dialogue’ actually taking place in some forum – these issues aren’t regularly discussed in everyday life, although perhaps in some circles such as university classes. Some of the videos I’ve been watching have names such as “South Africa: What about White People” or “South Africa: The Racist Capital of the World”. Quite honestly I’m not sure what to say about any of this at the moment (there’s so much to say that I’m not sure where to start). One thing though is that I see RSA as being a microcosm of the issues at play in the world at large - know what I mean? Anyway, that’s all I’m going to say for now… One thing I do notice is that there is a bit of a blame-game going on here at least from one side of the dialogue…

PS: I’ve included the address of some videos below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHPKhVmgtJM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GLVdgA1jJU

Kind of ironic... don't you think?

“I am not advocating cutting of relations with Russia… I am advocating for actions that will make it very clear to the Russians that there are long term consequences for violation of the norms of international behaviour” (Jon McCain on the current situation between Russia and Georgia…)

“…bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century.” (George W Bush commenting on Russia and Georgia…)

Occasionally I watched podcasts from various news agencies around the world in order to stay up to date with things happening in politics and other areas of this global village we call earth. While watching some newscasts recently I heard these words from 2 USA politicians. Considering the state of international relations at the moment, not to mention the various conflicts currently underway, I found these comments deeply ironic. Enough said (for now).

08 August 2008

A few more thoughts on Beijing...

Earlier today I was watching the opening ceremony of the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing and quite honestly I had very mixed feelings. Ever since the 1992 Olympics (before that I was too young to be all that interested in the Olympic Games) I have watched the ceremonies, the events, read the stories and shared in the excitement that comes from seeing your nations best on the world stage. As a sportsperson who spent years in training I know the excitement of competition, yet nothing I have experienced can compare to what it must have been like standing in that stadium.


But, as I watched this years opening ceremony I couldn’t help thinking about the recent coverage given to human rights abuses taking please in that part of the world including the ongoing conflict over the status of Tibet. The Olympic movement is at times looked at as a way to bring the world together in sport rather than in conflict, and this in spite of differences. Unfortunately as I watched this year’s opening ceremony I couldn’t help feel as though there is an attempt, at least on the part of some people, to gloss over some things going on in the world today in order to have this festival of sport and global brotherhood (this thought rising to the surface especially when seeing George W Bush in attendance and smiling at the USA’s athletes).


But then again there is quite a bit of money in sport today, more so than at any point before, and that is definitely a motive to gloss over the abuses suffered by a few unknown people in some lesser known part of the world.

01 August 2008

Perspectives can divide…

Recently I’ve been thinking about perspectives and the way that while they overlap in some places they can be so incongruent in other areas. A few months ago I was chatting to a friend and something regarding politics came up (after an earlier conversation we decided to avoid politics) and we realised that we had a very different perspective. I mentioned that I admired some aspects of what Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara stood for and fought for. My friend (from the USA) on the other hand was convinced that he had been a terrorist who didn’t care about anyone.


One reason I find this interesting is that many people in the world today Nelson Mandela is revered as a great man, a statesman, an icon. He said that Guevara was "an inspiration for every human being who loves freedom", yet to this day there are those who both revere Mandela and regard Guevara as a terrorist. I guess this supports the often-quotes and occasionally-disputed aphorism that states “one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter”.


Recently I came across something that M. Scott Peck (he was a psychiatrist and author) once said. He suggested that we should “share our similarities, celebrate our differences” yet unfortunately I see all too often these days that we are encouraged to focus on our similarities and ignore hope that differences don’t get in the way – or something like that. Anyway… that’s all for now…

29 July 2008

Just a Thought from a (not so) Different Perspective...

Hi again… I guess I’ve been really silent on this side, but then again my life has been a bit of a crazy and confusing rollercoaster at times over recent months.

So what have I been thinking about lately? Well, for some reason I found myself thinking about colonialism (no surprise there) and slavery. During my time in London there were “celebrations” marking 200-years since the end of the slave trade. This was somewhat ironic considering the number of people still being traded as slaves in the world today. I guess the modern global society as a whole sees the practice of slavery as unethical and criminal but there was a time it didn’t. it was seen as a essential to trade and it was a given. I guess this got me thinking about things that we take for granted as things that are normal and simply part of trade etc.

I’m talking about the way in which trade today makes the rich richer and the poor even poorer. This happens in spite of the increase in the popularity and spread of humanitarian agencies over recent decades. I’m just wondering how future generations will view the things this generation has argued away in the name of financial gains and global development. You could even say that we haven’t learnt from history so we are repeating it…

05 May 2008

"Little George" and Climate Issues...

I’ve been watching a TV show recently that is an animated parody of the actions of the current White House administration (although realistically it doesn’t take much creativity, the material is there for the taking). The name of the show is “Lil George” and I think it’s a great show – also look out for “That’s my Bush”… Anyway, back to the matter at hand…

Recently I was watching a podcast from Reuters on some things that George said recently on what needs to be done on the climate change issue and reducing “carbon emissions” etc. What I found so ridiculous is that he was making those claims. To date the USA has avoided any accountability under the “Kyoto Protocol”, something that has been signed by numerous nations around the world, but now wants to make claims and instructions about what needs to be done. Where does this presumptive authority and moral leadership come from? It’s especially puzzling that this “leadership” (something that the Secretary of State also said that the USA needs to “reclaim”) is without any significant and genuine accountability. I have to wonder if this kind of political posturing from a (as author Phillip Pullman says) “moral criminal” actually convinces anyone of any substance behind the claims. To me it appears that this is nothing more than posturing aimed at trying to place US policies in a positive light despite the unwillingness to be held accountable.

I know some would say that I tend to pick on George and his accomplices, but the fact is that the position they claim on the world stage makes them prime targets for criticism. I read a while back that there are “too many politicians in politics” today. What I understood by this is that there are too may people posturing and pretending while in public office, as opposed to people who actually want to do something with that office.

09 April 2008

Beijing Olympics = sacrosanct?

As I mentioned in my previous entry I have been thinking about the current situation in Tibet as well as the associated issue of the upcoming Olympic Games in Beijing. I have specifically been thinking about the politically-orientated discussion that has gone on surrounding the Olympics not to mention the protests taking place in places like Paris and San Francisco. There has been quite a bit of talk about whether politics should even be an issue when discussing the Olympics. The French president Nicolas Sarcozsy is talking about the possibility of not attending the opening ceremony and others are thinking of other ways use the fact that the Olympics are taking place in Beijing to pressure that government to change their reaction to the protests in Tibet.

I have been thinking about the reasons for this separation of politics from the Olympics and no matter which way I look at it I cannot find any argument that seems to hold water. Actor Richard Gere has said that the idea of the Olympic flame travelling throughout the world implies unity and harmony, but that there can be no harmony without hope or without truth. And, I believe it was Mark Spitz, the winner of 11 Olympic Games medals, who recently said that he doubts that athletes would risk financial endorsements etc to make political statements. I guess it’s more agreeable for some to have the Olympic Games go forward so that we can live with the illusion that everything is okay. With regards to what Spitz said I wonder if it is only the competitors who have their bank balances on their minds. One perspective on the economic issue I heard recently comes from someone I met here in Cusco recently (someone from the USA). He said that it’s no surprise that the USA government has not made any major moves, because after all there is no oil in Tibet (in that case I wonder if there’s any in Sudan). In any case this kind of action is not a new concept – numerous Olympic Games (i.e. 1956, 1980 and 1984) have been impacted by occurrences in the political arena. And some of those actions such as the USA boycott of 1980 Olympics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Summer_Olympics) seems significantly ironic when looking at it from the perspective of present day US actions.

The way I see it is that when social injustice and the depreciation of human rights becomes the norm or where lives are at risk then why should the Olympic movement be sacrosanct especially when that will continue to give tacit approval of injustices.

Peru & Tibet...

The current situation in Tibet, the upcoming Olympic Games in Beijing and everything being said about it have been on my mind quite a bit lately. Then again with all the news coverage it has been receiving it’s probably no surprise, but it was something that happened over the weekend that really got my attention.

I was walking home after grabbing a bite to eat at a local restaurant when I noticed a number of people sitting on the steps in front of the cathedral facing the Cusco’s main plaza. At least subconsciously I assumed that it was probably a protest relating to some workers union or the ongoing protests against privatisation of the tourism sector, but then one banner caught my eye. The banner (in Spanish) basically said: “Tibet = Peru 500 years later”.

I think what caught my attention about it is that (and this relates to my thoughts on globalisation as colonialism) those holding the vigil recognised something in what is happening in Tibet with what their ancestors experienced at the hands of the Spanish around half a millennium ago. I just stood there for a while watching them without really having a specific thought, but just feeling as though we were seeing the continuation of an unending cycle. On the one hand it was a disheartening feeling because the problem seemed so huge, yet at the same time it felt as though that simple hand-made banner was a symbol of global solidarity.

05 April 2008

Thoughts on Poverty ... postscript

Although I took a different look on the idea of poverty in my last entry, something that was by no means an original idea, there is a fiscal reality worth looking at again. In an entry called “The World at (not so) Large...” I mentioned the changing ratio between the world’s richest and it’s poorest. The reason I mention this again is that recent history shows that while the “lords of this (global) manor” may appear well-intentioned at times, even the fiscal facts vehemently contradict their promises and apparent intentions.

Thoughts on Poverty...

Following my recently blog entries I have been thinking about the issue of poverty – the alleviation of which is often cited as a reason for economic development in developing countries. This is the kind of thing I hear at times here in Cusco and I also heard it while I was living in London – sometimes these things are said in an implied way, although there is at times the unspoken idea that those saying that want to be able to make their own profits in the process too.

The problem is that I believe ‘poverty’ is at best misunderstood and at worst that misunderstanding is (mis)used for financial gain. What do I mean by this? I look at Cusco – the developing tourism sector, the resultant foreign investment, not to mention the scale of urban-ward movement. It’s all justified at times on the basis that it’s developing the economy, although the foreigner-led profit hunt is never denied. While I haven’t seen any figures I think it’s a safe bet to guess that there is considerably more money flowing through this region now that say 20 years ago, but I doubt that everyone is better off.

Back to poverty… In a world where decisions (both personal and perhaps political) are often made primarily based on the fiscal impact it’s interesting to note that poverty is mostly defined in terms of fiscal factors – even the United Nations has universal poverty line determined in monetary terms. The problem I have with this is that I don’t believe that it’s a true and holistic picture (some people I have spoken to agree with this but don’t see any way out). While it’s possible to look at issues such as the so-called “culture of poverty” or the “cycle of poverty” among other things I want to focus on one idea.

Not too long ago a hypothetical “Paolo” may have been living below the UN-determined poverty line but in his community where forms of bartering were still central cash was not a central issue. He was living not too far from Cusco and as the changes took place in the town and surrounding areas he move into the city to find the “better life” everyone was talking about. Jump forward a few years… He’s a grandfather and his kids have more cash-in-hand that he did (even relatively speaking), but he and many like him are now second-class citizens in their home country/region. Why second-class? Because, fiscal responsibility says that the tourist-dollar is priority; that is what matters. He and others like him have money and perhaps a job of some sort, but are they better off or are they perhaps (in some non-fiscal way) actually poorer?

24 March 2008

The World at (not so) Large...

An increasingly popular term doing the rounds doing is describing the world as the “global village”. We can now not only fly around the world in around a day, give or take a few hours – less if the Concorde was still operating. It’s possible to know what is happening n the opposite side of the world in real-time, global migration there are a decreasing number of mono-cultural nations around the world and political boundaries are nothing more little hurdles easily traversed by the giants of the political and economic sectors. Even that last comment I made is a bit of a misnomer, because when one considers the evident relationship between global political and economic powers we have to ask where one draws a line between economic and political matters.

While I am neither an expert nor even a formal student of the political and/or economic sciences but observation and various catalytic experiences have led me to ask some questions about the world we live in today. One article I recently came across rang true for me and was one of the recent catalysts encouraging this train of thought. The article, called “The Metamorphoses of Colonialism” by Jeremy Seabrook (see http://www.usp.nus.edu.sg/post/poldiscourse/seabrook1.html) traces the history of colonialism around the world and then discusses the subtle and more developed form that it has taken in the present-day, namely globalisation. This is at times a misunderstood term and perhaps one of those terms where some attempt to shape the meaning to suit their purposes (this would not be the first time). The Collins dictionary suggests that it is “process enabling financial and investment markets to operate internationally, largely as a result of deregulation and improved communications”. Many say that this has benefited many because of the ability to trade internationally.

Another way of seeing it though is by taking into account who are the ones controls those markets and communication channels or systems – international economic markets are centred around London and New York, with major communication networks owned by and controlled in the UK and USA. With this kind of control those we have seen the gap between the

So what is the effect of this? This global village has become more and more like a feudal village where the many are disenfranchised in order to serve the wants of the few. To put it in tangible terms, “the income ratio of the one-fifth of the world’s population in the wealthiest countries to the one-fifth in the poorest countries went from 30 to 1 in 1960 to 74 to 1 in 1995”.

19 March 2008

What is this all about?

As I’ve said in the description for this blog I have been fortunate enough to live (not just travel to) on 2 continents other than my own over the past 2 years. I specified lived as opposed to travel, because I believe you see things a bit differently when you stay in one place for a while. Does that mean I have all the answers? Definitely not. I also realise that some have seen, been to and lived in more places that I have in my life and that’s why I have hesitated somewhat to use the world (global).

That said I hope to thrash out a few things I have observed, learnt and questioned along the way. I know some will probably disagree with where my stance on some things and to date I have already had people tell me “that’s the way things are”. I guess maybe I’m just too stubborn, pig-headed or “harregat” (you may understand that if you are South African) to simply accept things as they are. My suggestion is let’s ask some questions and see where they take us…

While this wasn't my plan I find it somewhat, or at the very least interesting, that I'm posting this first entry on the 5th anniversary of a very visible and illegal actions by the nation whose actions and policies that some would say have contributed significantly to the global challenges we face today... The action in question is the US-led invasion of Iraq...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_19,_2003