I will begin this blog with promise... I promise that I have not become the expatriate who has taken to home bashing. There is no shortage of Britains' living abroad who enjoy this activity as a hobby. With a passion they air their views on how Britain “has gone to the dogs” and portray a country of ignorance and regression, overcast by an unfavourable climate. The climate argument I can perhaps agree on, but be assured, I advocate the calls for people to visit Britain to see and experience some of our fantastic national treasures.
Britain is a country rich in diversity, something to be celebrated. In many parts of the country, our economy thrives on tourism. Living in Liverpool for the past five years, I have seen on a daily basis the influx of tourists from all over the world.
Economically and socially, we are living in an age of international cooperation and integration. My generation is the generation of globalization; enjoying all the advantages of a global and accessible communication infrastructure, in the internet, and the opportunity of low cost travel (generally speaking).
However, a striking concern that I have developed during my short time here in France, is our national refusal to speak other languages. The best highlight of this can be seen in the government’s decision in 2004 to end compulsory languages at GCSE level in schools.
Any former school friends reading this will wonder what I am talking about. I spent the majority of my languages classes at school disrupting, rather than, contributing to them. Behaviour which I am now living to regret!
Living in France for this short time has made me realise the value of language. Languages enrich integration and opportunities. What will become of a nation, in the grasps of global integration, which refuses to venture from the security of its mother tongue?
European integration, despite the denials of the right wing nationalists, is here to stay. The ability of Britain to overcome recession is predetermined in our ability to maximise the potential of global economic and social integration. With the rise of a new era of international political economy, as many agree we are observing, if we refuse to develop our national capacity for languages beyond our own; we are surely reducing the potential to influence our future.
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Thursday, 7 May 2009
The problem with aid...
Aid today
Since the end of the Second World War, the concept of aid has been a prominent feature in international relations. The Marshall Plan paved the way for economic reconstruction and development as part of a shared solution to a shared set of problems. Genocide and conflict would give way to cooperation, integration and globalisation. The Cold War gave rise to a form of aid that was inherently geo-political, and in many cases, significantly to the detriment of the people it was meant to support. Aid became the bartering chip of both the communists and the capitalists, with rogue regimes squandering African development with the backing of their imperialist sponsors on the left and the right.
A somewhat simplistic assessment of the journey of aid since the 1950’s, yet the appraisal above draws on much of the compelling narrative surrounding the expedition of aid over the second half of the 20th Century. So what of this notion of aid today? What is aid and is it a “good thing” to do?
So what is ‘aid’?
As with any such concept, the definition of ‘aid’ depends on ones views of the international political economy; ones philosophy on humanity; and as ever, is open to great debate and scrutiny. I will define aid as I see it. There are many types of aid that can be delivered in many ways; the manner in which aid is distributed, often strikes at the heart of the debate as to whether or not aid is “good”.
Well aid is neither good, nor bad. Aid is complex. A very sophisticated and interconnected arrangement of factors that are inherently political, economical, social and philosophical compete to construct a process whereby some people are attempting to help other people survive, grow and evolve to a changing world. Aid is both humanitarian and developmental- the ongoing challenge for practitioners and policy makers alike is where these two functions bridge. This is the classic critique- how do we bridge the gap between aid and development?
However, recently, greater prominence has been given to those rubbishing the concept of aid all together.
A trillion wasted dollars
In recent months, as is perhaps inevitable during a world recession, debates surrounding the concept of aid as a feature of international development have promoted the idea of aid as detrimental. Perhaps the most prominent argument comes from Zambian economist, Dambiza Moyo. In her book, Dead Aid, Moyo argues that aid has failed
The problem with aid
Aid receives bad press because it is funded by the taxpayer. Media reporting of aid lining the coffers of rogue dictators, as was common in the 1990’s, reinforces perceptions that it is a waste of money, and in fact, morally inept. The debate has moved on somewhat since the scramble for satellite states at the height o the Cold War. Aid receives significantly more scrutiny and increasingly efforts are being made around the world to avoid duplication, reduce inefficiency and maximise sustainable development as an outcome of aid. Like any sector, regulation could be improved and ultimately, some money goes missing. Crucially however, as the right wing press will no doubt move into the territory of aid when the debates about charity starting at home come to the fore, aid must continue. Colonialism, trade injustices and, increasingly, the consequences of climate change will hit
Having somewhat dismissively rejected Moyo’s thesis, there is much to be said about the issue of reforming a global trading system, riddled with protectionist policies that fundamentally undermine the philosophy of development as a whole, let alone aid.
That the three leading British political parties have all commited to maintaining the budget for international development is pleasing. However, as the economic crisis continues to hit home, the issue of aid must not be seen as a luxury. Aid is a responsibility from which we all share a burden; African or British.
The problem with aid then, is not so much that it is a “bad” idea- the problem is that it is an idea influenced and manipulated by politicians, markets and circumstances. Development cannot be left solely to foreign direct investment and the kind of ideas that cost so many during the World Bank and IMFs Structural Adjustment Programmes.
The problem with aid is that it is so complex, and ultimately, is not your problem, its someone else’s.
Sunday, 26 April 2009
‘Politics’, the stakeholder idea and the threat of the fascist BNP ahead of the local and European elections
In defence of politics
Britain will go to the polls in June to decide local and European elections. Well, as is to be expected; only a small number of Britons will go to the polls. Local and European elections are characterised by very low turnout. One school of thought will tell you that the results will show who will be in government from May 2010. Another will say that these elections give the electorate the opportunity to issue government with a protest vote. The most concerning factor for us all however, from whatever Party or none, will be the masses who will take the decision not to register their vote.
I am someone with a passion for British politics and when discussing politics with family and friends, I often find myself having to defend the integrity of British politics and my motivations for wanting to engage in a system that is the preserve of ‘politicians’ and the political elite. It concerns me not that I have different views as to who should be in government, but that politics is a concept that is distinct from society. Politics is a separate entity in which politicians are reduced to personalities, and government legislates with only the motivations of the ruling elite in mind. This is the perception that the tabloids reinforce.
The stories that have dominated headlines in recent weeks have offered little defence to those of us who believe in the integrity of British politics.
Politics- the process by which decisions are made
In recent weeks and months, speculation about MP’s expenses has fuelled popular perceptions that our elected representatives are nothing more than self interested careerists. News about senior political advisors coordinating smear campaigns against opponents has contributed to the framing of politics as a ‘dirty business’. Yet politics is simply the process by which decisions are made. Politics is a concept that encompasses the forces, social and economic, that influence our democracy.
We elect representatives, entrusting them with the responsibility to steward British society for the better. But the process does not stop there. Electing politicians is a function of democracy- it does not warrant British society to be democratic in the truest sense.
For all the criticisms of New Labour, the centrality of the guiding principle of the citizen as the stakeholder must be maintained and promoted. The emphasis upon the importance of the individual within the collective promotes the role of ‘me’ in shaping a better society. There are many concerning elements to the guiding ethos of market driven government since the 1980’s, yet the idea to promote the individual as a leader with a stake in society is one that must be built upon. Politics is not simply a separate entity in which a ruling class governs society. The election in the US of Obama demonstrated the importance and significance of leadership and responsibility within communities. It is only through the promotion of this idea that we can begin to see our own roles in politics.
Votes at 16: another great Reform Act?
A measure that will assist in engraining this concept of individual leadership in shaping politics and society will most probably feature in the forthcoming Labour Party manifesto: votes at 16. The expansion of the franchise to all direct taxpayers has failed to feature in any of the previous expansions of the franchise over the past 200 years. Votes at 16 will assist in promoting the concept of the citizen as the stakeholder; it will not however combat the perception of politics as a separate entity and a ‘dirty business’. That challenge lies with us all.
The BNP- why we all have a responsibility
The debate on low turnout will no doubt raise its head following the elections on June 4th. However, with the possibility of a fascist being elected to the European Parliament to represent North West England, we cannot afford for the debate to wait until then. Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party, is standing for the North West seat for the European Parliament. The guiding ideas of ultra nationalism have demonstrated time and again the devastating consequences in terms of human cost. Governing on the basis of fear and division fosters the manifestation of hate and regression. We all have a role to play in overcoming such a development.
Register to vote on June 4th at www.aboutmyvote.co.uk and make your vote an anti-fascist vote!
Britain will go to the polls in June to decide local and European elections. Well, as is to be expected; only a small number of Britons will go to the polls. Local and European elections are characterised by very low turnout. One school of thought will tell you that the results will show who will be in government from May 2010. Another will say that these elections give the electorate the opportunity to issue government with a protest vote. The most concerning factor for us all however, from whatever Party or none, will be the masses who will take the decision not to register their vote.
I am someone with a passion for British politics and when discussing politics with family and friends, I often find myself having to defend the integrity of British politics and my motivations for wanting to engage in a system that is the preserve of ‘politicians’ and the political elite. It concerns me not that I have different views as to who should be in government, but that politics is a concept that is distinct from society. Politics is a separate entity in which politicians are reduced to personalities, and government legislates with only the motivations of the ruling elite in mind. This is the perception that the tabloids reinforce.
The stories that have dominated headlines in recent weeks have offered little defence to those of us who believe in the integrity of British politics.
Politics- the process by which decisions are made
In recent weeks and months, speculation about MP’s expenses has fuelled popular perceptions that our elected representatives are nothing more than self interested careerists. News about senior political advisors coordinating smear campaigns against opponents has contributed to the framing of politics as a ‘dirty business’. Yet politics is simply the process by which decisions are made. Politics is a concept that encompasses the forces, social and economic, that influence our democracy.
We elect representatives, entrusting them with the responsibility to steward British society for the better. But the process does not stop there. Electing politicians is a function of democracy- it does not warrant British society to be democratic in the truest sense.
For all the criticisms of New Labour, the centrality of the guiding principle of the citizen as the stakeholder must be maintained and promoted. The emphasis upon the importance of the individual within the collective promotes the role of ‘me’ in shaping a better society. There are many concerning elements to the guiding ethos of market driven government since the 1980’s, yet the idea to promote the individual as a leader with a stake in society is one that must be built upon. Politics is not simply a separate entity in which a ruling class governs society. The election in the US of Obama demonstrated the importance and significance of leadership and responsibility within communities. It is only through the promotion of this idea that we can begin to see our own roles in politics.
Votes at 16: another great Reform Act?
A measure that will assist in engraining this concept of individual leadership in shaping politics and society will most probably feature in the forthcoming Labour Party manifesto: votes at 16. The expansion of the franchise to all direct taxpayers has failed to feature in any of the previous expansions of the franchise over the past 200 years. Votes at 16 will assist in promoting the concept of the citizen as the stakeholder; it will not however combat the perception of politics as a separate entity and a ‘dirty business’. That challenge lies with us all.
The BNP- why we all have a responsibility
The debate on low turnout will no doubt raise its head following the elections on June 4th. However, with the possibility of a fascist being elected to the European Parliament to represent North West England, we cannot afford for the debate to wait until then. Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party, is standing for the North West seat for the European Parliament. The guiding ideas of ultra nationalism have demonstrated time and again the devastating consequences in terms of human cost. Governing on the basis of fear and division fosters the manifestation of hate and regression. We all have a role to play in overcoming such a development.
Register to vote on June 4th at www.aboutmyvote.co.uk and make your vote an anti-fascist vote!
Thursday, 23 April 2009
The Budget 2009: the birth of a new political economy?
There has been much debate within left leaning circles over the past 6 months about the future of Britain’s political economy. Yesterdays Budget presented the government with an opporunity to begin Britain's acsent from the current global recession; with the people of Britain, and not just the markets, at the heart of its strategy.
A very global crisis- no matter which Party you are from
The front pages of Sunday’s papers contained the deluge of political slur and scandals that have emerged to undermine a political culture already rife with apathy and cynicism. Not one paper I saw on the stand in the corner shop on Sunday morning made any reference to the forthcoming Budget.
Switching on the television, Andrew Marr was in the closing questions of his interview with Tom Hollander, who plays the incompetent and indecisive Minister for International Development in Armando Iannucci’s In the Loop. Iannucci’s political pantomime seemed the only thing relating (albeit very loosely) to politics that people talked positively about.
Next up was a discussion on the Budget with Shadow Chancellor, George Osbourne. The usual rally of questions and answers followed- with many things spoken but very little said, as is customary prime time Sunday morning politics. However, there were two points the Shadow Chancellor persistently rehearsed that spoke volumes about what a future Tory government might mean for Britain’s political economy.
‘Invest and save’ repeated Osbourne. Britain needs to ‘invest and save’ if it is to re-emerge from the recession. Move away from a culture of spending and debt, he argued. Invest and save. But when pressed, the Shadow Chancellor would not enter into dialogue on where specifically cuts for savings would come from. I am not naïve enough to suspect that with an election looming, any commitment to specific spending cuts would be made. But nor was I convinced that the Conservatives are in a position to articulate a clear political economic strategy which they wish to implement. The one thing that worries me more than a Tory government with a clear strategy for ‘cuts and savings’ is a Tory government leading on ‘cuts and savings’ with its eyes closed.
Despite Andrew Marr’s unquestionable integrity, it sat somewhat uncomfortably to hear him say ‘when you are in government…’.
Let’s face it, the odds are against Labour winning a fourth term, but with such a gapping hole in Conservative political economic policy, Labour stands a growing chance.
A second resounding point (for those who share my political inclinations, this is not such a surprise) was Osbourne’s reference to the recession as a creation of New Labour. ‘Mr. Brown’s recession’ he called it. In an effort to score Political points to such an audience Osbourne merely succeeded in pandering to Political affiliations on either side and negated the significance and scale of the challenge that Britain faces. No government will end the recession and lead Britain into a better future overnight, but real policies and a real strategy for Britain, built on the values of sustainable industries and opportunity and aspirations, will enable people, society and business to progress.
Moving the goal posts
Where Tory ethos has failed to revive old attitudes to the role of government in British society, the Labour Party and its progressive alliances have helped to change the face of the British political landscape.
It is very easy to disregard the changes in the landscape of British politics since the early 1990’s, and despite the need for vigorous debate on a future guiding vision for Britain, lets not forget the paradigm shift that has created, not a perfect society (and defiantly not a ‘broken society’) but a more equitable, just and progressive one.
Britain toady is a very different country to what it was in the 80’s and 90’s.
Society has changed. Culturally, society has molded ‘liberal values’ of the marginalised into the societal expectations of a citizenship.
The economy has changed. New industries have evolved. Traditional industries declined or developed. Innovation in communication and technology has shaped the way we engage with business and within our communities.
The role of the state has been defined and cemented, in an effort to protect the vulnerable and provide opportunities for all, within the context of globalisation and market fundamentalism.
We continue to be confronted by the variables influencing the ability of government to shape change. However, a progressive vision for a future political economy must now address the main challenges faced by the interconnected outcomes of the current financial crisis and the process of climate change.
Let the debate begin on whether yesterday’s Budget marks the start of such a narrative.
A very global crisis- no matter which Party you are from
The front pages of Sunday’s papers contained the deluge of political slur and scandals that have emerged to undermine a political culture already rife with apathy and cynicism. Not one paper I saw on the stand in the corner shop on Sunday morning made any reference to the forthcoming Budget.
Switching on the television, Andrew Marr was in the closing questions of his interview with Tom Hollander, who plays the incompetent and indecisive Minister for International Development in Armando Iannucci’s In the Loop. Iannucci’s political pantomime seemed the only thing relating (albeit very loosely) to politics that people talked positively about.
Next up was a discussion on the Budget with Shadow Chancellor, George Osbourne. The usual rally of questions and answers followed- with many things spoken but very little said, as is customary prime time Sunday morning politics. However, there were two points the Shadow Chancellor persistently rehearsed that spoke volumes about what a future Tory government might mean for Britain’s political economy.
‘Invest and save’ repeated Osbourne. Britain needs to ‘invest and save’ if it is to re-emerge from the recession. Move away from a culture of spending and debt, he argued. Invest and save. But when pressed, the Shadow Chancellor would not enter into dialogue on where specifically cuts for savings would come from. I am not naïve enough to suspect that with an election looming, any commitment to specific spending cuts would be made. But nor was I convinced that the Conservatives are in a position to articulate a clear political economic strategy which they wish to implement. The one thing that worries me more than a Tory government with a clear strategy for ‘cuts and savings’ is a Tory government leading on ‘cuts and savings’ with its eyes closed.
Despite Andrew Marr’s unquestionable integrity, it sat somewhat uncomfortably to hear him say ‘when you are in government…’.
Let’s face it, the odds are against Labour winning a fourth term, but with such a gapping hole in Conservative political economic policy, Labour stands a growing chance.
A second resounding point (for those who share my political inclinations, this is not such a surprise) was Osbourne’s reference to the recession as a creation of New Labour. ‘Mr. Brown’s recession’ he called it. In an effort to score Political points to such an audience Osbourne merely succeeded in pandering to Political affiliations on either side and negated the significance and scale of the challenge that Britain faces. No government will end the recession and lead Britain into a better future overnight, but real policies and a real strategy for Britain, built on the values of sustainable industries and opportunity and aspirations, will enable people, society and business to progress.
Moving the goal posts
Where Tory ethos has failed to revive old attitudes to the role of government in British society, the Labour Party and its progressive alliances have helped to change the face of the British political landscape.
It is very easy to disregard the changes in the landscape of British politics since the early 1990’s, and despite the need for vigorous debate on a future guiding vision for Britain, lets not forget the paradigm shift that has created, not a perfect society (and defiantly not a ‘broken society’) but a more equitable, just and progressive one.
Britain toady is a very different country to what it was in the 80’s and 90’s.
Society has changed. Culturally, society has molded ‘liberal values’ of the marginalised into the societal expectations of a citizenship.
The economy has changed. New industries have evolved. Traditional industries declined or developed. Innovation in communication and technology has shaped the way we engage with business and within our communities.
The role of the state has been defined and cemented, in an effort to protect the vulnerable and provide opportunities for all, within the context of globalisation and market fundamentalism.
We continue to be confronted by the variables influencing the ability of government to shape change. However, a progressive vision for a future political economy must now address the main challenges faced by the interconnected outcomes of the current financial crisis and the process of climate change.
Let the debate begin on whether yesterday’s Budget marks the start of such a narrative.
Tuesday, 14 April 2009
Compass Youth- Direction, ideas and debate in a time of change
We are living in uncertain times. The global economic crisis that has come to fruition over the past year has created a long overdue debate on politics and economics in Britain. For decades, we have relied on a political narrative driven by reliance and trust in markets; and a belief that markets will self regulate to create a more equitable society. Up until recently there was a general acceptance in the mainstream media, amongst politicians and from the general public that the City looks after the markets and we get on with our daily lives.
The current situation we face however means we can no longer continue to operate in such a way- the “elephant in the room” has fixed itself so firmly in front of the television that we can no longer resist asking it to get out the way.
However, amidst the gloomy headlines and alarming unemployment figures, we are presented with a new space in which to open debates about a better future for our society.
Asking the questions that matter
‘Socialism has failed. Now capitalism is bankrupt. So what comes next?’ This was the headline of a recent comment article from the Guardian. This question is central to the debate that has dominated the columns of articles and blogs over the past weeks and months. What is the guiding idea from which to unite for a better Britain? The crisis we face is so great, the challenge so difficult, the opportunity for the youth of Britain to do nothing is however, inevitably, so easy.
In his article (referred to above) author Eric Hobsbawm argues of the need for a progressive policy for action for Britain; one that addresses the needs of people and not the markets. He identifies a central hypothesis, that is, we do not know what the solution is for a better future for Britain. The problem is clear- we live in a society that negates the need of people and that favours consumerism, dumbed down versions of reality- delivered in overdoses of fly-on-the-wall documentaries- and a desire for aesthetically reassuring behaviours.
Access to health care, education, employment and social prosperity are issues at the fringes of everyday discussions at a time when they must be placed at the centre.
‘The test of a progressive policy’, writes Hobsbawm, ‘is not private but public, not just rising income and consumption for individuals, but widening the opportunities and what Amartya Sen calls the “capabilities” of all through collective action’.
If we are to develop ideas for a progressive guiding vision for Britain, we must ask the questions that will enable us to realise our capabilities. We must ask the questions that government “can’t” with a general election looming on tax, on reforming global governance and on regulating an out of control global financial sector. There are signs that a narrative is developing on an international stage following the principles agreed upon at the G20 summit. But principles are little else without the leadership and guidance from which realise that a more equitable society is a destination to which we can arrive, should we choose to demand it.
Compass Youth- A space in which to create a vision for a new future for Britain?
Over the past few years, Compass has demonstrated examples of visionary leadership in calling for a renewed debate on a mixed economy- an economy that is inherently political. Compass Youth offers a space for progressively minded individuals, the next generation of political leadership, to explore ideas about a future Britain that puts people and their capabilities at the heart of government. At this time, the risk for the youth of Britain of doing nothing, comes at a high price, yet the hardest thing we can do, is to do something. But what is that something?
British society is increasingly shaped by a culture of consumerism and a focus on the individual over that of society. Society blames central government for the negative interferences in our lives- whether this be youths causing anti-social behaviour or the poor interest accumulating on our savings. And rightly so, in some respects. However, the ease at which we point the blame, sometimes sits uncomfortably in a vacuum of leadership and a better vision.
That one man can bring so much hope, inspiration and generate individual leadership in the United States demonstrates clearly that we all have our role to play in shaping positive change within our societies. Compass Youth offers us a forum in which to challenge ourselves and our ideas and to overcome the most difficult challenge of all- to do something.
There is no guiding idea- no one big idea- from which to advocate but upon the foundations of a socially progressive movement of democratic socialism; we must now begin to ask the big questions:
Why are we not talking about higher levels of taxation for those earning obscene amounts? This is not as much a political question as it is a question on moral obligations;
Why does Britain not galvanise its sense society and with this increased levels of responsibility for neighbours and fellow citizens?;
How can the ideas of a more equitable progressive policy agenda be transferred to an election winning manifesto?
Compass Youth does not hold all the answers. However, perhaps it does offer an arena and a platform from which to springboard ideas and leadership credentials, for those willing to stand up and speak out?
The current situation we face however means we can no longer continue to operate in such a way- the “elephant in the room” has fixed itself so firmly in front of the television that we can no longer resist asking it to get out the way.
However, amidst the gloomy headlines and alarming unemployment figures, we are presented with a new space in which to open debates about a better future for our society.
Asking the questions that matter
‘Socialism has failed. Now capitalism is bankrupt. So what comes next?’ This was the headline of a recent comment article from the Guardian. This question is central to the debate that has dominated the columns of articles and blogs over the past weeks and months. What is the guiding idea from which to unite for a better Britain? The crisis we face is so great, the challenge so difficult, the opportunity for the youth of Britain to do nothing is however, inevitably, so easy.
In his article (referred to above) author Eric Hobsbawm argues of the need for a progressive policy for action for Britain; one that addresses the needs of people and not the markets. He identifies a central hypothesis, that is, we do not know what the solution is for a better future for Britain. The problem is clear- we live in a society that negates the need of people and that favours consumerism, dumbed down versions of reality- delivered in overdoses of fly-on-the-wall documentaries- and a desire for aesthetically reassuring behaviours.
Access to health care, education, employment and social prosperity are issues at the fringes of everyday discussions at a time when they must be placed at the centre.
‘The test of a progressive policy’, writes Hobsbawm, ‘is not private but public, not just rising income and consumption for individuals, but widening the opportunities and what Amartya Sen calls the “capabilities” of all through collective action’.
If we are to develop ideas for a progressive guiding vision for Britain, we must ask the questions that will enable us to realise our capabilities. We must ask the questions that government “can’t” with a general election looming on tax, on reforming global governance and on regulating an out of control global financial sector. There are signs that a narrative is developing on an international stage following the principles agreed upon at the G20 summit. But principles are little else without the leadership and guidance from which realise that a more equitable society is a destination to which we can arrive, should we choose to demand it.
Compass Youth- A space in which to create a vision for a new future for Britain?
Over the past few years, Compass has demonstrated examples of visionary leadership in calling for a renewed debate on a mixed economy- an economy that is inherently political. Compass Youth offers a space for progressively minded individuals, the next generation of political leadership, to explore ideas about a future Britain that puts people and their capabilities at the heart of government. At this time, the risk for the youth of Britain of doing nothing, comes at a high price, yet the hardest thing we can do, is to do something. But what is that something?
British society is increasingly shaped by a culture of consumerism and a focus on the individual over that of society. Society blames central government for the negative interferences in our lives- whether this be youths causing anti-social behaviour or the poor interest accumulating on our savings. And rightly so, in some respects. However, the ease at which we point the blame, sometimes sits uncomfortably in a vacuum of leadership and a better vision.
That one man can bring so much hope, inspiration and generate individual leadership in the United States demonstrates clearly that we all have our role to play in shaping positive change within our societies. Compass Youth offers us a forum in which to challenge ourselves and our ideas and to overcome the most difficult challenge of all- to do something.
There is no guiding idea- no one big idea- from which to advocate but upon the foundations of a socially progressive movement of democratic socialism; we must now begin to ask the big questions:
Why are we not talking about higher levels of taxation for those earning obscene amounts? This is not as much a political question as it is a question on moral obligations;
Why does Britain not galvanise its sense society and with this increased levels of responsibility for neighbours and fellow citizens?;
How can the ideas of a more equitable progressive policy agenda be transferred to an election winning manifesto?
Compass Youth does not hold all the answers. However, perhaps it does offer an arena and a platform from which to springboard ideas and leadership credentials, for those willing to stand up and speak out?
Saturday, 11 April 2009
In 2009- is another Rwanda possible?
In his harrowing account of the events that left over 800,000 people dead within the space of 100 days, the United Nations commanding officer in Rwanda during the genocide tells of the failing of humanity and the impotence of the international community in the international awarding winning Shake hands with the devil. In his book, Lt General Romeo Dallaire offers insight into the decisions that led to the extermination of just under a million Tutsi and moderate Hutus. Exposing the futile impotency of the UN secretariat, this testimony bares witness to a fundamental failing in global governance- the failure of the prevention of genocide on the grounds of state sovereignty.
Many other forces contributed to Rwanda’s neglect; however, the resistance to effective humanitarian intervention on the grounds of state sovereignty is central pillar in most evaluations of the international community’s response to Rwanda. In 2009, 15 years after the genocide unfolded in Africa’s Great Lakes region, have lessons been learnt from the incomprehensible, meticulous process of planned genocide in this small and beautiful landlocked country?
Lessons learnt?
Case studies since would suggest the process of trial and error for humanitarian intervention continues to expose Africa’s most vulnerable to the face of the machete. In Darfur since 2003, hundreds of thousands have been killed and millions displaced amid a government sponsored campaign to rid the lands of Western Sudan of the black African farmer. Conflict fuelled by ethnic cleavages, dispute over the rights to farming lands and a complex history of war in the Sudan has resulted in yet another tragedy of humanity less than ten years after the events in Rwanda.
The United Nations Security Council failed to take decisive action, as the usual trump card was dealt by the stumbling bloc Soviets and modern day Red Army- hosts to the 2008 Olympic games- China. As international pressure mounted for an effective humanitarian intervention to be deployed to Darfur, the Security Council was vetoed from intervening in any meaningful way. As a joint African Union/ United Nations operation sat well in principle, the reality was always going to be somewhat different. Women would continue to be raped. Children would continue to be killed. Villages would continue to be destroyed and communities ravaged beyond repair. The refugee fallout from Darfur led to the conflict spreading across the region, adding another dimension and level of complexity.
If any lessons were learnt from Rwanda, they were confined to the theories of academics and policy makers marginalised from the network of global governance. More recently, we can see another example of national sovereignty acting as a guardian against humanitarian intervention- in the case of Zimbabwe.
Once the shining light of southern Africa, Zimbabwe was described as the ‘bread basket’ of the continent. Economic development created employment and the growth of public services; an independent African state in the shadows of apartheid in neighboring South Africa. Zimbabwe offered hope. This was short-lived as Mugabe’s well document campaign of destruction was unleashed upon anyone who challenged his rule. It’s not the first time, nor will it be the last, that a despot was born from the process of democracy.
In Zimbabwe today, we see the results of Mugabe, the delusional fanatic, in the cholera epidemic; the failed economy; the bloodshed and violence; the failed state.
The regional and global systems of governance that exist to prevent mass human rights abuses on this scale have demonstrated that in 2009, another Rwanda could be possible unless the new world order that the G20 leaders talk of, acknowledges the weak global governance structures and seeks to reform them. The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France) do not hold the key to these solutions alone. However, without their leadership and a commitment to reform a post-Cold War model of failed global governance, progress will be slow and short lived and the prospect of another genocide waits in the wind.
Useful references:
Romeo Dallaire- Shake Hands with the Devil: the Failure of Humanity in Rwanda
Phillip Gourevitch- We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families (Rwanda)
Peter Godwin- When a crocodile eats the sun (Zimbabwe)
Many other forces contributed to Rwanda’s neglect; however, the resistance to effective humanitarian intervention on the grounds of state sovereignty is central pillar in most evaluations of the international community’s response to Rwanda. In 2009, 15 years after the genocide unfolded in Africa’s Great Lakes region, have lessons been learnt from the incomprehensible, meticulous process of planned genocide in this small and beautiful landlocked country?
Lessons learnt?
Case studies since would suggest the process of trial and error for humanitarian intervention continues to expose Africa’s most vulnerable to the face of the machete. In Darfur since 2003, hundreds of thousands have been killed and millions displaced amid a government sponsored campaign to rid the lands of Western Sudan of the black African farmer. Conflict fuelled by ethnic cleavages, dispute over the rights to farming lands and a complex history of war in the Sudan has resulted in yet another tragedy of humanity less than ten years after the events in Rwanda.
The United Nations Security Council failed to take decisive action, as the usual trump card was dealt by the stumbling bloc Soviets and modern day Red Army- hosts to the 2008 Olympic games- China. As international pressure mounted for an effective humanitarian intervention to be deployed to Darfur, the Security Council was vetoed from intervening in any meaningful way. As a joint African Union/ United Nations operation sat well in principle, the reality was always going to be somewhat different. Women would continue to be raped. Children would continue to be killed. Villages would continue to be destroyed and communities ravaged beyond repair. The refugee fallout from Darfur led to the conflict spreading across the region, adding another dimension and level of complexity.
If any lessons were learnt from Rwanda, they were confined to the theories of academics and policy makers marginalised from the network of global governance. More recently, we can see another example of national sovereignty acting as a guardian against humanitarian intervention- in the case of Zimbabwe.
Once the shining light of southern Africa, Zimbabwe was described as the ‘bread basket’ of the continent. Economic development created employment and the growth of public services; an independent African state in the shadows of apartheid in neighboring South Africa. Zimbabwe offered hope. This was short-lived as Mugabe’s well document campaign of destruction was unleashed upon anyone who challenged his rule. It’s not the first time, nor will it be the last, that a despot was born from the process of democracy.
In Zimbabwe today, we see the results of Mugabe, the delusional fanatic, in the cholera epidemic; the failed economy; the bloodshed and violence; the failed state.
The regional and global systems of governance that exist to prevent mass human rights abuses on this scale have demonstrated that in 2009, another Rwanda could be possible unless the new world order that the G20 leaders talk of, acknowledges the weak global governance structures and seeks to reform them. The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France) do not hold the key to these solutions alone. However, without their leadership and a commitment to reform a post-Cold War model of failed global governance, progress will be slow and short lived and the prospect of another genocide waits in the wind.
Useful references:
Romeo Dallaire- Shake Hands with the Devil: the Failure of Humanity in Rwanda
Phillip Gourevitch- We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families (Rwanda)
Peter Godwin- When a crocodile eats the sun (Zimbabwe)
Monday, 30 March 2009
‘No turning back’- a mantra for a new generation of British politics?
In a recent article in the New Statesman, two leading commentators on the British democratic left opened a debate on a future narrative for British politics. Neal Lawson, chairperson of the left leaning think tank Compass, and Guardian journalist, John Harris, argued that Britain must resist the temptation to return to either market or state fundamentalism.
No to Thatcherism and No to Marxism then (crudely speaking)! The Third Way, they argue, has crumbled upon the shaky foundations from which it was built. So then- what is this vision for a better future for the people of Britain? How can it be achieved and who is going to achieve it?
My blogpage
Far greater thinkers than I have tried, and failed, to answer such questions. Therefore I will begin my quest into the world of bloging by outlining my intentions and motivations.
I will strive to ask more questions than I will answer. I wish to open and engage in constructive and challenging debate with progressive minded people who want to participate in improving society; both locally and internationally.
There is clearly a desire from people, particularly young people, in Britain for the development of a political narrative from which they can unite behind in the hope of creating a better society for their families and communities. In adhering to this hypothesis, I hope to share ideas and ask questions about the prevailing domestic political stalemate as well as considering some of the key global challenges facing our generation.
This blogpage will not be a platform from which to spout rhetoric for the Party of which I am a member (Labour); but to generate thoughts on how I think we can improve our society- both as local and global citizens.
No turning back? So which way is forward?
Simon Jenkins, author and political commentator for the Times, wrote a book on the legacy of Margaret Thatcher: Thatcher and Sons. In this, a very academic and intricate analysis of the Thatcher legacy, Jenkins makes a very straightforward assessment- that since the downfall of Thatcher, successive Prime Ministers have pursued the doctrine of market fundamentalism. ‘Brown at the Treasury, even more than Blair in Downing Street, adhered to Thatcherism in almost (I stress almost) every particular’ writes Jenkins.
I do not agree with this assessment of the New Labour project- I do not have to reel off the many progressive steps taken under the guise of equality since 1997 that have fundamentally altered the customs and accepted practices within British society- but the emphasis of business and the individual over society and the collective has created a real need from which to re-examine our vision for a better Britain.
So what is this new ‘mantra’ for British politics? Does No turning back offer us a positive step forward? By uniting against what we are opposed to provide us with a sound foundation from which to build a progressive vision for a better society? Or, does this narrative offer critique without any real sense of a collective vision for how we can respond to the current global economic crisis?
Your thoughts please!
No to Thatcherism and No to Marxism then (crudely speaking)! The Third Way, they argue, has crumbled upon the shaky foundations from which it was built. So then- what is this vision for a better future for the people of Britain? How can it be achieved and who is going to achieve it?
My blogpage
Far greater thinkers than I have tried, and failed, to answer such questions. Therefore I will begin my quest into the world of bloging by outlining my intentions and motivations.
I will strive to ask more questions than I will answer. I wish to open and engage in constructive and challenging debate with progressive minded people who want to participate in improving society; both locally and internationally.
There is clearly a desire from people, particularly young people, in Britain for the development of a political narrative from which they can unite behind in the hope of creating a better society for their families and communities. In adhering to this hypothesis, I hope to share ideas and ask questions about the prevailing domestic political stalemate as well as considering some of the key global challenges facing our generation.
This blogpage will not be a platform from which to spout rhetoric for the Party of which I am a member (Labour); but to generate thoughts on how I think we can improve our society- both as local and global citizens.
No turning back? So which way is forward?
Simon Jenkins, author and political commentator for the Times, wrote a book on the legacy of Margaret Thatcher: Thatcher and Sons. In this, a very academic and intricate analysis of the Thatcher legacy, Jenkins makes a very straightforward assessment- that since the downfall of Thatcher, successive Prime Ministers have pursued the doctrine of market fundamentalism. ‘Brown at the Treasury, even more than Blair in Downing Street, adhered to Thatcherism in almost (I stress almost) every particular’ writes Jenkins.
I do not agree with this assessment of the New Labour project- I do not have to reel off the many progressive steps taken under the guise of equality since 1997 that have fundamentally altered the customs and accepted practices within British society- but the emphasis of business and the individual over society and the collective has created a real need from which to re-examine our vision for a better Britain.
So what is this new ‘mantra’ for British politics? Does No turning back offer us a positive step forward? By uniting against what we are opposed to provide us with a sound foundation from which to build a progressive vision for a better society? Or, does this narrative offer critique without any real sense of a collective vision for how we can respond to the current global economic crisis?
Your thoughts please!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
