Y Safle

Paul Wolfowitz, one of the puppeteers who used the spectre of terrorism to get George Bush to invade Iraq, was always a controversial appointment to the head of the World Bank. A man with nothing apparently to offer the role, this was patronage pure and simple.

You see, whilst European shares outweigh American shares in the World Bank, there is a cosy little arrangement whereby the IMF head is in the gift of the Europeans, and the World Bank head in the gift of the Americans. Not surprisingly, the result is political patronage and a lack of accountability in these positions.

Knowing this, Wolfowitz recently announced that he would crack down on corruption by government and officials in developing world nations (see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4688022.stm).

So it is somewhat ironic that he did not crack down on his own corruption, by doing the honourable thing and resigning forthwith. Instead he argues he should stay to cintinue the work he is doing. It is arrogant of the man to suppose that he is the best man (even that he is an acceptable man) to root out corruption and lead the institution in such circumstances.

How is the World Bank supposed to be taken seriously in a drive to root out corruption and mismanagement when its head is there by virtue of patronage, and involved in just the kind of corruption that is the bane of developing countries.

It is not only time Wolfowitz was given his marchiong orders – it is time that this corrupt institution, and the IMF too, had a more democratically accountable means of selecting a competent head.

This is the classic video of John Redwood, the English MP that John Major put in charge of the Welsh Office in the 1990s, not realising that Redwood would use the post to launch his bid to become the next prime minister.

Redwood can be widely credited for creating the discontent that led to devolution in Wales. As he handed back millions of pounds to England, wrecked the health service and destroyed public services with a political vision diametrically opposed to that of the Welsh people, he proved once and for all that Wales would be better off handling its own affairs.

And not just because we *do* know the words to the national anthem.

Viewers of channel 4 have been swindled by director Martin Durkin (again), and Carl Wunsch of MIT is angry about it. He was approached by Durkin to make a supposedly balanced film about global warming issues, getting away from the hysterical propoganda from the polarised political debate (particularly in the American political arena).

What concerned scientist would object to such a thing? But Durkin misled Wunsch. For instance, Wunsch writes:

In the part of the “Swindle” film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous—because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important — diametrically opposite to the point I was making — which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some unexpected.

You can read the whole of Carl Wunsch’s open letter.

So what do we make of this programme? It is the most biased an scientifically illiterate documentary I have seen in a while – but actually true to form for channel 4 and Durkin. In 1997 he made a series for Channel 4 called “Against Nature”, which compared environmentalists with Nazis, conspiring against the world’s poor. The people he interviewed thought that he was making a balanced critical examination of environmentalism, but the contributors were lied to about the contents of the programmes and given no chance to respond to the accusations the series made.

The Independent Television Commission handed down one of the most damning verdicts it has ever reached: the programme makers “distorted by selective editing” the views of the interviewees and “misled” them about the “content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part.” Channel 4 was forced to make a humiliating prime time apology.

As formal complaints have made by this programme’s contributors too, we can but await another apology from channel 4. The question is why this channel ever agreed to use this same producer again.

A link to one of my articles on the Agricultural Biodiversity Weblog elicited a comment that included this:

The so-called ‘market economy’ (a euphemism for monopoly capitalism) is not environmentally sustainable, no matter how much green paint and promises of ‘eliminating poverty’, etc., you apply.

As a very ambivolent anti-capitalist, I found strong sympathy with that statement, and yet I find that I cannot agree. These are my reasons:

1. Capitalism is driven by greed and consumerism. It is an illogical and wasteful system, and one that has huge problems. However, whilst the greed leads to an anti-environmental cycle if left unchecked, it is nevertheless possible to intervene to use the assumptions of capitalism for environmental benefit. An example of this might be the EU emissions trading scheme, which puts a price on emission reduction, and thus generates a trade. Whilst the scheme is not perfect, it is better than hand wringing or sticking our heads in the ground and saying there is no problem (or the problem is intractable).

2. Capitalism is an organic system like any other. It may be a system driven to consume resources, but like any system, if the consumption is too aggressive, then there are negative feedbacks into the system that restrain it. (The problem being that the negative feedbacks perhaps kick in too late to be of any use to the people that are suffering now!)

3. Historically capitalism has been evil, and yet has paradoxically also been a great benefit. The UK invented capitalism with our industrial revolution. It could be argued that Wedgewood invented the idea of planned obsolesence, and modern marketing. In generating a market in patterned chinaware, he essentially began the whole process, even as indutrialisation was changing our landscape.

But here is the oddity – industrialisation created the terrible “labour market” whereby even skilled labourers would be stuck on subsistence wages, and any response to change in the labour market would take a generation to work through – which did not help those with skills no longer valued. But at the same time, the industrialised UK saw population growth – especially in industrialised towns, whilst non industrial countries saw famine and starvation that killed millions.

So unless we have a solution that is better for people than capitalism, we have to paraphrase Churchill et al. and say “Capitalism is the worst of all systems. Except for all the others”.

4. Finally, I am a pragmatist. The way to change the world is in small steps and individual changes.

A comment on another blog raised the question of whether environmentalism and international development are working at cross purposes. The argument is as follows:

In many ways Environmentalism and International Development are conflicting, if not totally incompatible agendas. Which is ironic, given that they tend to both be pushed by the same people, simultaneously.

1. Local food restricts developing countries’ access to world markets – thereby stunting their economic growth;

2. Organic and GM-free foods encourage biodiversity, but can’t possibly produce the yields needed to avert famines in the developing world;

3. So called ‘Fairtrade’ locks third world producers into inefficient, commodity-crop farming when they should be diversifying – thereby ensuring they will never earn more than just-above-poverty wages.

These agenda are both essentially bourgeois. It’s alright for us in the west because we are rich and developed enough to be able to make these food choices without risk, but to enforce them on the developing world is a death sentence – economically, developmentally, and (in many cases) physically.

Sadly, many on the left don’t actually want the third world to develop. They’d rather keep them in a mythical, agrarian ‘golden age’ and have this patronising view of people there as ‘noble savages’ – victims who need to be ‘saved’ from globalisation and the west.

They can’t accept the unpalatable truth that what people in the developing world REALLY want is to be go-getting, middle-class capitalists like the rest of us.

Dizzy Thinks Blog

Now there is much to say here, but I intend to ignore the issue of whether the writer really understands what “the left” wants. (My argument would be that the right/left division is, in any case, essentially bogus).

On the assumption that we can agree that people have concern for the environment and compassion for the poor, and what to see an improvement in the condition of both, how do we answer these claims?

On point 1, does local food production restrict access of developing countries to local markets?

Well on some level there might be some truth in this. If we buy strawberries in february, where do they come from? Are they flown in from Africa?

Clearly that is an environmental disaster. We should eat fruit in season, and not pander to a must-have culture that ramps up the food miles and energy cost of growing foods. But if we do so, then we inhibit the ability of the African farmer to sell his crop on the world market.

But we are not locking the farmer out of the market. Instead, if we live by environmentally sound principles, we ensure that there is no market for strawberries in february. What will teh farmer do? diversify into a crop that he *can* sell. That is just market forces at work.

As long as the African farmer is free to sell any crop into our markets without restriction, there is not a problem.

But there is a problem, because we *do* lock African countries out of our markets. We prevent the market from working for the benefit of these farmers.

The answer is not to eat more strawberries. The answer is to free up the markets.

2. Organic production encourages biodiversity, yes. But it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the organic movement to think that this is the root of the movement (although the misconception is a common one, helped on by many who market organic food).

Organic production is primarily about sustainability. E.F. Schumacher wrote a book “Small is Beautiful” which made the point that fossil fuels are energy *capital*. They are a limited resource, and so good economic principles insist that we only spend the resource in ensuring sustainability.

So the point of organic production is precisely to get to a point where efficient sustainable production of food can indeed meet our needs. It can be done, but will only happen if we move step by step towards the goal.

3. Fairtrade does not lock producers into a crop. It guarantees a fair wage for that crop. Now that may seem artifically high for the crop, because non fair trade coffee can be purchased by companies for a lower price, and it may be that some of those selling at the lower price would do better to diversify.

What will happen? Those who should diversify will. The price of coffee paid to the grower will thus edge up, as demand outstrips supply, and everyone will benefit, without fair trade affecting anyone.

Now if a fair trade grower could earn more by diversifying, then they will also diversify. Indeed, the fair price for their crop will ensure that they have access to more capital to allow for the diversification.

The very idea that paying consumers less than a fair price for their crop will somehow economically benefit them is preposterous.

So this commentator is wrong on all points. Environmentalism is not an enemy of international development.

Indeed, there are some benefits from environmentalism. For instance, the disadvantaged nations of the world will be disproportionately worst hit by the effects of climate change. Efforts to tackle this problem (caused by the richer nations) will aid the third world.

Copyright developed in the age of the printing press, and was designed to fit with the system of centralized copying imposed by the printing press. But the copyright system does not fit well with computer networks, and only draconian punishments can enforce it.

The global corporations that profit from copyright are lobbying for draconian punishments, and to increase their copyright powers, while suppressing public access to technology. But if we seriously hope to serve the only legitimate purpose of copyright–to promote progress, for the benefit of the public–then we must make changes in the other direction.

Richard Stallman

The second president of the United States of America, John Adams, said:

Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak.

Today the EU accepted a report on secret CIA rendition flights. Rendition is a strange word to use. It brings to mind either a recital of music, a translation or such like, or else images of mechanical processes used in the food industry. It is also related to the word surrender, but what it seems to mean in this case is simply “transport to a location for torture”.

There is no doubt that the CIA has been torturing prisoners (usually using other regimes to actually get their hands dirty with the deed, but anyone participating in the act in any way is equally guilty). Now it seems that EU states have been conspiring with the USA over this torture.

The powers in our nations do indeed like to think they have a great soul – but they are all evil. Those in power are fallen and evil people, and their imagined great soul is mired in hypocrisy.

It is trendy these days to wear fashion accessories with the letters
WWJD written on them. The letters stand for
“What Would Jesus Do”?

This question is a pertinent one. In any situation, we should ask, what
would Jesus believe was the correct course of action? If we follow him,
then we need to know what he would do, so that we too can do it.

But I would like to add some extra letters: DWRHAC – “Do we really have
a clue”? Have we any idea what Jesus would do about the illegal and
immoral detention of people in Guantanamo bay? Do we know what Christ
would say about going to war to secure oil supplies in Iraq? Do we know
what his view would be on the destruction of our environment? Do we know
what he would say about mortgage debt? Social security? Health care?
People using the asylum system to escape economic deprivation? The EU
and U.S. trade rules and dumping of food that keep Africa poor so that
we can stay rich?

How do we know what Jesus would say on an issue? Only by studying
the message of the Bible *and* studying the situation. Even then
there is often room for doubt, which is why Christians can disagree. We
have the Holy Spirit as our guide and the Bible to teach us, but what
would Jesus do about Guantanamo bay (where no doubt the prisoners are
being tortured too)? I have no idea.

But one thing I know – he would not do nothing. It was not within him to
turn his back on injustice, and that is the Christ I would follow.

A coalition of charities, faith groups and unions has warned Tony Blair that any military action against Iran would have “unthinkable” consequences.

The organisations are urging the prime minister to put pressure on the US to enter talks with Tehran.

The US has refused to rule out military action if Iran does not halt its nuclear activities.

Here we go again. As we are warned of the very real dangers of nuclear proliferation in the repressive state of Iran (which does terrible things, such as hanging 16 year old boys for homosexuality, and women for killing in self defence people who are raping them), we are enjoined to demonise that state so that we can then invade it with impunity.

Iran’s culture is foreign to us, and the people there cannot be said to be free in the way that we might say that Canadians or Norwegians are free. There is much wrong with the state, and much we can criticise.

But on the other hand, it is a state that is now surrounded by an aggressive United States military, which has a reputation of acting violently and aggressively against those who do not fall in line with it. From the Iranian point of view, there is much to fear from the US, and there would be good reasons of self preservation in seeking to create a nuclear weapon. That is what currently safeguards North Korea, after all.

Look at this map of Iran. Notice that to the east it has a long land border with US occupied Iraq. To its south are arab states friendly to the US, where there are many thousands of US combat soldiers stationed. To its west are US friendly Pakistan and American occupied Afghanistan. To the north east is Turkey, a Nato country, and the only relief is to the North where former soviet states border Iran. It is not surprising they feel surrounded.

But what if Iran were given security guarantees?

In 2004, as Noam Chomsky reports, the European Union and Iran struck a bargain: Iran would temporarily suspend uranium enrichment, and in return Europe would provide assurances that the United States and Israel would not attack Iran. Under US pressure, Europe backed off, and Iran renewed its enrichment processes.

So are the political options exhausted? Certainly not. The US is precipitating this crisis, and the disasterous results of an illegal invasion of yet another sovereign state will be more death, misery and a huge store of ill feeling that can only be expressed in further terrorism, murder and violence, lasting for generations.

US President George W Bush is warning Iran that America will “respond firmly” if the country increases what he calls its “interference” in Iraq.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1835861.htm

Quite right.

We would not want foreign countries interfering in Iraqi affairs!