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?