Open Democracy
The philosophical and political implications of 'The Spirit Level': a response to Gerry Hassan, Rupert Read
If you want a primer on Wilkinson and Pickett's joint book The Spirit Level, then the pieces here are worth a look (one by me). And for a comprehensive set of responses to their critics, including a pre-emptive strike against Gerry Hassan’s recent piece on OK this is all you need. (It is worth noting too that Wilkinson and Pickett’s work is peer-reviewed; that of their critics isn’t.)
For me as a philosopher, the thing about The Spirit Level that is most exciting is that as a study of the pervasive harms of inequality it strongly suggests that John Rawls's 'difference principle', which says that inequalities are OK provided that they materially benefit the worst off, a principle that has dominated political philosophy for 40 years, is simply wrong. Empirically wrong.
Which means that put into action ‘the difference principle’ will create a worse society, across a whole index of measures. Perhaps surprisingly, it will make virtually everybody, and certainly the worst off, worse off. (Or at least: worse off than they could be if an alternative way of ‘organising inequalities’ – a more egalitarian way - were settled upon.) Even if they have more money or more things (are ‘materially better-off’), this will not translate into an improved quality of life: on the contrary.
In sum: it is now possible for the first time to show that the difference principle (and, by extension, liberal political philosophy whether or not of the ‘trickle-down’ variety) makes the worst-off on balance worse off, and this can I think reasonably be taken to constitute an empirical refutation of the claim that it could possibly be just. (We philosophers don’t often get to make empirical refutations of others’ claims, so this is quite exciting!) Wilkinson has said to me, by the way, that he agrees with this reading of mine, that his and Pickett’s work has a devestating impact upon the centrepiece of Rawls’s liberal political philosophy.
For me as a Green, what is so welcome about this book is that it provides a powerful way (additional to our standard points about sustainability) to argue back against those who claim that the answer to the problem of poverty is always economic growth. For economic growth that grows inequality will only increase relative poverty. And this brings out once more the truth in an old idea that should never have gone away. That the main reason that the poor are poor is nothing to do with their own alleged inadequacies. The main reason that the poor are poor is simply that the rich are rich.
The Spirit Level is reviving egalitarianism powerfully at a time when neoliberalism had had its way for too long. With the vast financial and ecological crises of recent years neoliberalism was almost asking to be replaced. I can’t help but see the book in this light, as a hugely valuable contribution to our political culture. This little kingdom is offering something of value moreover to the whole world, by virtue of being the intellectual home of Wilkinson and Pickett.
China’s unstable stability, Li Datong
China has since 1979 been developing at breakneck speed. During this thirty-year period, the growth in government revenues has far outstripped increases in everyday people's incomes. Moreover, political reform has never really made it out of the starting-blocks. This has left China's rigid and deeply traditional political system unable to manage an increasingly complicated set of social transformations (see "Beijing's credibility crisis", 25 September 2009).
The nationwide political opposition in 1989 was a new experience for the authorities. With little idea of how to defuse the situation, they eventually resorted to violence. Since then, China's leaders have been gripped by an almost pathological fixation: maintaining stability. Deng Xiaoping, the architect of reform, rarely missed an opportunity to stress that “stability is everything” “stability comes first”, and that “without stability, we can achieve nothing". The notion has evolved to become one of the highest administrative tenets at every level of government.
The preparedness to use violence has become an increasingly explicit part of the state’s security mechanisms. The military reaction to the Tiananmen Square demonstrations in 1989 is the most vivid example, but it is illustrated since then in less dramatic ways - for example, the huge growth of China’s security services and the rapid advances in the equipment they use, to the extent that China's paramilitary police are among the most advanced in the world. In several cities, the new-year “festivities” now consist of a street-parade of armed-police vehicles and other marvels of law-enforcement technology (see "Tiananmen: the legacy of 1989", 4 June 2009).
Such ritual displays of power turn real when, in Beijing and elsewhere, large squads of riot-police are deployed to support the demolition of people's homes to make way for redevelopment. And when local governments are faced with one of the tens of thousands of “mass incidents” that emerge in China each year, their first response is to send in the troops. A substantial proportion of these incidents now involves vigorous (sometimes violent) resistance by citizens to the the riot-squads’ depredations.
All these facilities are part of the internal-security budget - which increased by 16% in 2009, and will jump by another 8.9% in 2010. This “stability fund” is second in size only to military spending in the government’s accounts, but - at 514 billion renminbi (RMB) ($76 bn) - fast approaching parity with it in absolute terms. It is also the twisted offspring of a backward and opaque political system (see Kerry Brown, "China and America: the uses of vulnerability", 8 June 2010).
The cost of control
The distortion reaches to the lowest rung of the social ladder. I know a woman who has petitioned for years to report the corruption of an official, a man from Guizhou who headed the city of Zunyi's representative office in Beijing. She had solid evidence which was confirmed by a Beijing court, so her claim already carried legal weight - yet what should have been a clear case has dragged on for a decade without any conclusion in sight. She told me recently that another Guizhou official offered her 800,000 RMB ($120,000) to drop her suit.
Indeed, the phenomenon of a tide of petitioners converging on Beijing from all corners of the country is one of the most worrisome forms of “instability” for China's local governments. The vast majority is turning to the central government in final hope after exhausting all local avenues. But the state agency responsible for “letters and calls” has no real power to solve problems at the grassroots; the posting of strongly-worded messages, or - at the limit - of administrative inspections to exert pressure on local officials is as much as Beijing can do. The counterproductive effect is to encourage local officials to block would-be petitioners from ever submitting their requests (see Kerry Brown, "China's shadow sector: power in pieces", 17 September 2009).
How big is the budget for blocking petitions? In October 2007, the month of the seventeenth Communist Party congress in Beijing, the province of Hebei sent 5,000 “anti-petition” officials to Beijing in pursuit of its “zero-petition” target. In total, provincial governments sent as many as 100,000 agents to the capital with the express task of keeping petitioners out. A lower-level official from Shandong explains how it works: “When the higher-ups want us to intercept a petitioner, they'll immediately send two or three people to track the person down. It costs about 10,000-20,000 RMB a time because they pay for everything - food, living expenses, even petrol.”
But forcibly returning people home doesn't solve the problem - many make a fresh dash for Beijing the moment their supervision is lifted. This leaves the last-resort solution of throwing money at the problem and hoping it will go away - hence “spending for stability”.
And what spending! The snatch-and-return policy is just one part of a wider public-security effort which (according to publicly available statistics) cost Guangzhou 4.4 billion renminbi alone in 2007 - against a welfare-and-jobs fund its authorities spent 3.5 billion RMB on.
The end of the road
The spectral terror of “instability” has long created administrative distortions at every level of China's government. But here there is a key difference between China and elsewhere. The administration in a normal country has to deal with different sets of competing interests; for a government to survive, it must make sure that constitutional and legal mechanisms are able to handle any clashes between different interest-groups. Thus, the existence of a robust legal system reassures people that in pressing circumstances they have the means to argue their case and receive an impartial ruling.
In China. however, state agencies continue to struggle on in precisely the opposite direction (see Minxin Pei, China's Trapped Transition: The Limits of Developmental Autocracy, Harvard University Press, 2008). If a a single area begins to experience a glut of similar cases - say, inadequate compensation-payments for house-relocation - the government will routinely order district-courts to stop hearing that kind of case. The inevitable result is to force people onto the much more arduous path of seeking redress for their grievances on their own initiative and outside formal legal channels.
The imposition of stability via a combination of violence and money creates a vicious cycle, well conveyed in a Tsinghua University report: “People end up with a misguided set of expectations. To resolve a problem, you need to kick up the kind of fuss that's going to 'upset stability’; if you can't threaten stability, then forget about finding any solutions to your troubles” (see New thinking on stability maintenance: long-term social stability via institutionalised expression of interests, Social Development Research Group, Tsinghua University, April 2010).
Again, both groups and individuals are left with no choice but to rely on extra-legal measures - including violence - to vent their frustrations. They translate the official line of “paying for stability” into a straightforward calculus: “cause a riot, problem solved; cause a disturbance, problem partially solved; keep quiet, no solution at all.”
The government is close to spending as much on maintaining stability as on its standing army. The result is a deep black hole. But more than money is being thrown away - so is the Beijing government’s moral capital. China's political way of doing business has reached a dead end.
This article was translated from Chinese by Oliver Lough
Sideboxes 'Read On' Sidebox:China Elections and Governance
Richard McGregor, The Party: The Secret World of China's Communist Rulers (Harper Collins, 2010)
Sang Ye, China Candid: The People on the People's Republic (University of California Press, 2006)
Kerry Brown, Friends and Enemies: The Past, Present and Future of the Communist Party of China (Anthem Press, 2009)
Sidebox:Li Datong is a Chinese journalist and former editor of Bingdian (Freezing Point), a weekly supplement of the China Youth Daily newspaper. In 2006 he was the recipient of a Lettre Ulysses award for reportage on his experience at Bingdian:
“As a professional journalist, I am completely incapable of understanding or accepting the suspension of ‘Freezing Point’ … To those who made this decision, what do the readers count for? What does the prestige of a large mainstream newspaper count for? What do the laws of the country and the party constitution count for? What does the reform and the opening up of China count for? They see this public instrument as their own property, thinking they can dispose of it as they please.”
Also by Li Datong in openDemocracy:
"China's leaders, the media and the internet" (8 July 2008)
"China's digital nationalism: Kung Fu Panda under fire" (16 July 2008)
"The Weng'an model: China's fix-it governance" (30 July 2008)
"Death in Shanghai, law in China" (15 September 2008)
"China's power, China's people: towards acountability" (29 September 2008)
"China's stalled transition" (19 February 2009)
"China: democracy in action" (19 March 2009)
"China's Tibet: question with no answer" (16 April 2009)
"Tiananmen: the legacy of 1989" (4 June 1989)
"China's civil society: breaching the Green Dam" (17 July 2009)
"Beijing's credibility crisis" (25 September 2009)
Related stories: China’s seasonal politics China’s shadow sector: power in pieces Google vs China: capitalist model, virtual wall China: inside strain, outside spleen Xinjiang, Tibet, beyond: China's ethnic relations Charter 08: a blueprint for China Gao Zhisheng and China's question Tiananmen, 1989-2009 China and Liu Xiaobo: the weakness of strength A new approach to human rights (and China) Tiananmen’s shifting legacy Kashgar’s old city: landscape of loss Xinjiang: China’s security high-alert China and America: the uses of vulnerability China's freedom test Mao Zedong in video-history's gaze China’s political tunnel Country: China Topics: Civil society Democracy and government International politicsUS foreign policy and unsafe abortion in Africa, Chi Mgbako
United States foreign policy abortion restrictions have often hampered African NGOs’ efforts to reduce deaths and disabilities associated with unsafe abortion procedures. In a positive recent development, however, the fight for African women’s access to safe abortion services took a small but important step forward. On 29 July 2010 the United States Senate Appropriations Committee passed an amendment to the State and Foreign Operations bill authored by New Jersey Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg that would permanently ban the Global Gag Rule, a US foreign policy restriction that has haunted reproductive rights organizations in Africa and other parts of the Global South on and off for over two decades.
The Global Gag Rule prohibited NGOs receiving any US foreign assistance from engaging in abortion-related activities, including the distribution of information regarding safe abortion, even if the NGOs used their non-US funds for the forbidden services. Now that the Senate committee has passed the Lautenberg amendment, the United States Congress should act quickly to forever eliminate the Global Gag Rule. Women’s lives in Africa and throughout the Global South are at stake.
One of US President Barack Obama’s first actions upon taking office in January 2009 was to repeal the Global Gag Rule through an executive order. However, only a law passed by the United States Congress can make the repeal permanent. A permanent ban of the Global Gag Rule would allow US foreign aid recipients in Africa and elsewhere to invest resources for safe abortion care without fearing a potential change in US foreign policy with each new administration.
The fate of the Global Gag Rule and African women’s access to safe abortion services has long been subject to the vagaries of US political winds. President Ronald Reagan first introduced the Global Gag Rule, also known as the Mexico City Policy, in 1984. Subsequent Republican US presidents including George HW Bush and George W Bush upheld or reinstated the Global Gag Rule during their tenures. Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama signed executive orders rescinding the rule.
Reproductive rights advocates have long lobbied the US Congress to pass a law that would permanently repeal the Global Gag Rule and forever remove it from the political whims of each successive administration. A US Senate vote in favor of a permanent ban on the Global Gag Rule would help eliminate once and for all the corrosive effects of the gag rule in African countries and throughout the world.
According to the World Health Organization, 5.5 million African women undergo unsafe abortions each year, often resulting in death or short- or long-term disability. East Africa in particular has one of the world’s highest rates of maternal deaths linked to complications from unsafe abortions. During recent research and fieldwork in Ethiopia, where each year unsafe abortion accounts for 50% of the 20,000 maternal deaths, I observed how the uncertain future of the Global Gag Rule could affect women’s access to safe abortion services that can save their lives.
Unsafe abortion remains the leading cause of death among Ethiopian women of childbearing age, surpassed only by HIV/AIDS. Many Ethiopian women have little or no choice over when or how they become pregnant. Lack of female control over contraceptive use, domestic and sexual violence, early marriage, forced abductions, and poverty often strip Ethiopian women of control over their reproductive lives and lead to unwanted pregnancies. Over 50% of all women seeking abortions in Ethiopia do so outside the reach of trained medical professionals.
In 2005, Ethiopia courageously liberalized its national abortion law in order to address the public health crisis resulting from the high incidence of unsafe abortion. However, US foreign policy remained a hurdle to the successful implementation of the law. Eight long years of the Bush administration’s enforcement of the gag rule eroded the strength of well-known and respected abortion service providers in Ethiopia including Marie Stopes International Ethiopia (MSIE) and the Family Guidance Association of Ethiopia (FGAE).
MSIE and FGAE had long been dedicated to providing safe abortion services that often meant the difference between life and death for Ethiopian women. During MSIE and FGAE’s years roaming the Global Gag Rule wilderness they lost all US funding and Ethiopian women suffered as a result. Organizations that continued to receive US funding were forbidden from even presenting Ethiopian women with information about safe abortion. Thus, US foreign policy undermined Ethiopia’s attempt to address a public health crisis affecting countless Ethiopian women.
Although Ethiopian reproductive healthcare providers cheered President Obama’s repeal of the Global Gag Rule on 23 January 2009, confidence that a future US administration will not resurrect the gag rule remains low. Ethiopian local NGOs link the policy change with the domestic abortion debate between Democrats and Republicans in the US and fear that a subsequent administration may reinstate the gag rule.
The uncertain political fate of the Global Gag Rule may cause organizations in Ethiopia and elsewhere in Africa and the Global South to refrain from investing necessary resources to increase access to safe abortion fearing that a change in US foreign policy may cause them to lose US funding altogether. Absent a permanent repeal of the Global Gag Rule, women’s access to safe abortion services in the Global South will remain tenuous.
To avoid this devastating result, the United States Congress should permanently repeal the Global Gag Rule by passing the Lautenberg amendment to the State and Foreign Operations bill. A permanent repeal of the Global Gag Rule would ensure that organizations receiving US foreign aid in Ethiopia, throughout Africa, and elsewhere in the world can tackle the problem of unsafe abortion which claims the lives of countless women – often poor and marginalized –without fear of the harsh ramifications of uncertain US political currents.
Read “Exporting Confusion: U.S. Foreign Policy as an Obstacle to the Implementation of Ethiopia’s Liberalized Abortion Law.” (PDF), co-authored by Chi Mgbako.
Country: Ethiopia United States Topics: Civil society EconomicsIraq: on the path to national salvation?, Mohammed Hussainy
The “Non-Dialogue” dialogue is still going on among the Iraqi political powerhouses in their attempt to form or rather “un-form” the government. As the election results were inconclusive in that they gave significant weight to all major stakeholders involved in the formula, forming the government in Iraq has become even more difficult as time goes by. At the time when everyone was talking about a Maliki-Allawi competition over the office of prime minister, new details surfaced only to render an already complex situation even more complicated. All sides now play a major role – in other words, they do not play any role since they all have a major role! The political agreements and disagreements among the winning blocs led to a political stalemate accompanied by deterioration in security and living standards.
The current situation in Iraq is a classic example of conflict over power – a conflict that is trans-sectarian and trans-ethnic although it might look otherwise. One indicator of this type of conflict is the hard-line attitude Sadrists and the Supreme Islamic Council (SIC) show when it comes to allowing Maliki to remain in office notwithstanding the fact that these three heavily rely on their Shiite religious base. At the same time, we find that Sunni powers support the secular Shiite, Iyyad Allawi, and show no objection to the fact that he might seal deals with the predominantly Shiite National Alliance (NA). Meanwhile, the Kurds are on their toes awaiting the outcome of the days to come so that they can decide on their next steps to attain the maximum possible power-related gains.
In light of this political incapacity and the inability of Iraqi political powerhouses to form a government, let alone their inability to form a majority bloc in the parliament, alternative scenarios for potential solutions have been raised. These various scenarios have one thing in common: they have all originated abroad; to this effect, a national salvation government is one such scenario that is rigorously promoted nowadays.
As part of this scenario, the minister of interior, Jawad Boulani, is one of the names put forward to serve as prime minister of the proposed national salvation government. Despite the fact that Boulani did not perform as should be during the recent elections, his name often surfaces as a figure that everyone, or at least most blocs, might entertain as the next prime minister.
There is talk that the United Nations might adopt a US proposal to form a national salvation government; rumor has it that the Iraqiyya List would support such a government as it expects to have a considerable share of the ministerial portfolios. To this end, an indicator might be found in the fact that certain Iraqi political personae who did not run in the elections or ran independently of the Iraqiyya List, have recently joined, albeit unofficially, to be represented in such a national salvation government.
Leaks from within the National Alliance indicate that the Supreme Islamic Council and Sadri Movement will not mind if such a scenario materialises, as long as it does not entertain the idea of keeping Maliki in office, and as long as that proposed government will guarantee them cabinet ministerial positions of a weight equal to that which they won in the elections.
With regards to the State of Law Coalition, it might be split as there are internal voices that call for keeping Maliki as prime minister whereas others from within the coalition find it better to take part in the next government regardless of whether Maliki remains as prime minister. The former side is the one that was implied when the issue of serious coordination with Allawi was brought up.
Despite the fact that it might sound an easy option on paper, this scenario is not complexity-free in reality. Even if all stakeholders accept Jawad Boulani as prime minister, it should not necessarily mean that the conflict has come to an end, for there is still an equally fierce showdown that awaits to be resolved when all sides face each other again to choose who will be appointed for the offices of the president and house speaker. Only once these posts are settled can all sides attend the conflict and competition over the other sovereign cabinet posts in the government.
Kurds insist that the political consensus established during recent years gives them the right to keep the office of the president, for they emphasize that the role President Jalal Talabani played was that of a national patriot par excellence. In their opinion, some Kurdish powers even blame Talabani for not being blatantly biased in favor of Kurdish demands while in office. In proportion to the weight of their bloc in the parliament, Kurds believe that their claim to this office in particular is thus justified.
By contrast, the Arab Sunnis are being more vocal now as they insist that the president of Iraq should be a Sunni Arab under the pretext that Iraq is an Arab state in a Sunni Arab region, and that its president has to be so that he will be accepted in the Arab Sunni space. Sunni Arabs in Iraq also fall back to the argument that the office of the president has long been allocated to them in Iraq – stressing the fact that what has happened throughout recent years has been an eccentric case and that the record should therefore be set straight.
Despite such difficulties, the scenario for a national salvation government gains momentum over time for four key reasons. The first is the inability of the Iraqi political powers to reach an agreement to form a government that would win the confidence of everyone or the majority of the members of parliament at least.
The second reason pertains to the huge deterioration in security and living conditions that have threatened to drain the patience of Iraqi citizens. The latter are now regretting and bitterly wondering about the outcomes of the democratic process so far. The voices that undermine the validity of such democracy are now heard louder – a logical consequence in a country where, although it is supposed to be one of the richest nations in the region, citizens still lack the simplest means to a decent life. It is most certain that such circumstances brought about by the political stalemate in the country will create an enabling environment for the growth of extremist groups, an increase in violence and the deterioration of security.
The third reason results from the interventions of neighboring countries; Iran supports a government led by a Shiite religious figure, preferably from the National Alliance (specifically from the Supreme Islamic Council), although it would not mind if the next prime minister came from the State of Law Coalition, whether Maliki or someone else. Other countries like Turkey and some Arab states support Allawi as the next PM. Amidst all these tensions, the scenario that proposes Boulani as the next prime minister might qualify as acceptable or feasible at the regional level.
The fourth and final supporting factor pertains to the United States directly. As the ultimatum for its troops combat mission mandate grows nearer, the US would like to see that happen under the umbrella of a stable Iraqi government that can assume responsibility as it is handed over from the US army – as part of the preparations for pulling out US troops from this US-occupied country after seven years. Naturally, reaching that stage will not be an easy task in light of the current political and security situation. With only one month remaining before that ultimatum matures, the US government might support the option of forming a salvation government to facilitate the handover of security and military control.
As all Iraqi political powers are keen on avoiding accusations of being followers or satellites of the United States or neighboring countries, their best hope might be to see a salvation government put forward by a non-partisan organisation – the United Nations. The question, then, is whether the UN is willing to risk its credibility and objectivity by throwing itself into the scorching political inferno that is today’s Iraq.
Country: Iraq Topics: Democracy and governmentThe financial sector needs a civil society watchdog, Ekkehard Thümler and Lorenzo Fioramonti
The global financial crisis has ravaged economies in Europe and North America, and has also severely affected many other regions of the world, including some developing and emerging countries. The long-term consequences of this crisis are hard to predict, but all governmental responses (including the recent G20 in Toronto) point to a general downsizing of the public sector that will inevitably result in layoffs and cuts in the social sector and welfare systems. Moreover the events have revealed how fragile the whole European monetary system actually might be: within the European Union, Greece is the most recent example of a country brought to its knees by a mixture of budget overspending and financial speculation (with Spain, Portugal and some other EU members facing similar risks). The drastic reforms announced by major economies such as Germany and the UK attest to the gravity of the situation and might even be symptoms of a fundamental threat to the sustainability of the European social model. And in some countries the economic crisis may spark a wider social crisis, affecting citizens and civil society, even though in some cases that might give rise to interesting new configurations of the public, private and third sectors.
The non-profit sector has also suffered the consequences of the financial downturn. Public as well as private funding has shrunk, while social tensions are on the rise, thereby placing an additional strain on NGOs, voluntary organizations and other non-profit entities already running on tight budgets. As funding has plummeted, proposals for a ‘bailout’ for the non-profit sector have been voiced in a number of non-governmental forums across the Atlantic. The Foundation Center, a US-based service provider to philanthropic foundations, has set up a specific programme to focus on the economic crisis in order to support non-profits through the recession and help them strengthen their fundraising skills. Other foundations have launched programmes to help non-profits adapt to the new financial climate and re-organize their business model in an age of austerity.
Yet, a recent survey focusing on how US philanthropic foundations have supported non-profits during the recession paints a rather bleak picture: poor communication, ad-hoc initiatives and little systematic help in responding to the real challenges of the downturn. Most foundations seem to act poorly and, often, in a piecemeal fashion, with little coordination across sectors. As regards overall financial support, the giving forecast 2010 put together by the Foundation Center confirms the downtrend among the biggest American foundations: a significant number of big philanthropists have cut their budgets due to reduced endowment income and sharp decline in asset value.
Whatever foundations are doing to help non-profits muddle through the financial crisis, their mainstream approach appears to be reactive at best. What is lacking is a proactive attitude by non-profits and, especially, endowed grant-making foundations that might turn the crisis into an opportunity critically to review global economic mechanisms and contribute to reform of the financial sector. The prescription in terms of fund-raising and business management seems to be “more of the same.”
There is a wide consensus that the financial crisis was caused by reckless behaviour on the part of many investment and commercial banks, encouraged by the liberalization of financial markets, lack of effective public monitoring, and a generalized bandwagon mentality paving the way for mass investment in obscure financial products. Along with many investors and businesses, foundations were also lured into high-risk or fraudulent investments. An egregious case is the JEHT Foundation, which lost the bulk of its endowment through Bernard Madoff’s ‘Ponzi scheme’ and was forced to close down in 2009.
Against this backdrop, one might think that tackling the root causes of the financial crisis (rather than focusing exclusively on some of the symptoms) would be an important and meaningful goal for civil society as such, and philanthropic foundations in particular. In the German weekly newspaper Die Zeit, non-profit specialist Helmut Anheier has argued that the financial crisis should be seen as a window of opportunity for foundations and called on them to ‘jumpstart’ the creation of a watchdog organization to rein in financial speculation and provide a genuinely public oversight of markets. Indeed, unlike other areas within society, the financial sector is virtually unchecked: not only does it take advantage of poor and often conflicted governmental oversight mechanisms, but it also thrives due to a strikingly limited presence of civil society actors. According to Anheier, philanthropic foundations possess all the necessary qualities to support the development of a civil society infrastructure that might lead to the establishment of the “Greenpeace” of financial markets. Why not imagine a transnational network supported by national chapters and significant grassroots participation, a point of reference for citizens and other public advocates and the public eye on global finance, a campaigning organisation that could turn the spotlight of publicity onto the speculative tendencies of financial actors? Foundations have not only the financial resources, the political clout and the communication tools, but also the autonomy and freedom to do the job. But have they made any moves in this direction? Are there organizational, economic or political reasons why foundations might find it difficult to play such a proactive role?
A quick survey shows some initiatives on both sides of the Atlantic. Possibly the most prominent example is the Institute for New Economic Thinking, founded in 2009 with a $50 million pledge by Janus-faced finance tycoon and philanthropist George Soros, which aims to revisit economic theory and practice with the long-term ambition to establish a new economic paradigm. In Germany, most political foundations and the publicly funded Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (German Institute for International and Security Affairs) appear to have reflected upon the challenge and some of them have convened meetings and issued publications on reforming financial markets. Among the large private foundations, the Bertelsmann Stiftung has been funding a project on the “Future Social Market Economy“, which discusses the sustainability of German capitalism in the light of the crisis. In Great Britain, the Carnegie UK Trust set up a “Commission of Inquiry into the Future of Civil Society in the UK and Ireland“, which developed recommendations for more transparency, stronger local/social investment and more significant involvement of civil society in financial matters.
These are, of course, some handpicked examples and more research will be done in the coming months (we are planning to conduct a systematic survey in September-October 2010). Yet, the overall picture does not seem to be very encouraging. Investment in this more ‘political’ domain is minimal compared with more traditional (social) areas of philanthropic involvement. The few foundations that have started investing in innovative research do not seem to have embarked on supporting public advocacy initiatives, let alone paid any attention to the possibility of supporting a strong watchdog role by civil society. This seems surprising given how easily unchecked markets can wipe out the positive effects of decades-long social justice and service delivery work carried out by non-profits. So, how can we explain this apparent reluctance of large foundations to get involved, in spite of their enormous potential as progressive social actors (and aside from the fact that, in a few cases, they may be constrained by statutory requirements)? We propose a few hypotheses:
(1) Lengthy process: Foundations are complex institutions and it takes them time to adjust to new challenges. In some cases, there have been internal discussions and new projects might be in the pipeline, but nothing has been made official yet and no clarity is offered as regards to when these new initiatives might begin.
(2) Lack of expertise: Foundations are willing to do the job but having focused almost exclusively on social, legal and service delivery work they lack the economic expertise and the staff (at present) to propose new initiatives in this field.
(3) Building alliances: Foundations are willing to take on the task, but they also recognize that the complexity of the matter requires a broad-based alliance among philanthropists, which might take time to build due to sectoral competition.
(4) Path dependency: Foundations might be less innovative than we think and therefore might be reluctant to get involved in entirely new fields. This would make them unlikely to be the ’first movers’, but it does not exclude the possibility of them jumping on the bandwagon once new initiatives have successfully taken off.
(5) Political caution: Monitoring and advocating in the field of international finance might place foundations on a highly political terrain they might not be comfortable with. If this were the case, not only would they be unlikely to take the first step, but they would also refrain from funding such large-scale initiatives in the long run.
(6) Conflict of interest: Foundations might be part of the problem, rather than the solution. With assets invested in the stock markets and board members often very close to financial institutions(e.g. investment banks), foundations might not be able to play a neutral and independent role in such a field. They may not even think of themselves as fully autonomous when it comes to reining in economic powers.
The financial/economic crisis is one the most significant challenges of our time. Although exerting a heavy toll on all countries’ economies, it can also become an opportunity to learn from our mistakes and do something to prevent it from happening again. Civil society should be a force for good in society and should have a role in all sectors, including finance. Whatever the challenges, if foundations fail to engage with financial reform, they will miss a crucial opportunity to contribute to sustainable and long-term social change – which after all is their mission.
Of course, not all foundations are equivalent, and we are aware of how diverse the sector is in reality. The constraints discussed above might prevent only some foundations from getting involved in this ‘hot’ field, while others – we hope – will find it easier to grasp the importance and urgency of the task. Alliances have to be forged across various fields and actors within civil society in order to pull the best energies and resources together. This would also imply a stronger support for cutting edge advocacy initiatives and a closer relationship with other social actors, such as grassroots movements, trade unions and active citizenship organizations. Whatever civil society initiative might be born out of the ashes of the current financial crisis, it will need to grow organically, ideally from the bottom up and with participation from different sectors. Foundations should limit themselves to nurture this spontaneous process and help it get off the ground.
Needless to say, supporting such an alliance would require many foundations to rethink their role in society and become more ‘political’ and more critical of our economic system – the same system from which most of them originally sprang. Their response will show the foundations’ potential or perhaps their limitations as drivers of social change.
NOTE: The authors will conduct a systematic survey of foundations’ reaction to the crisis in September-October 2010 and, after that, a symposium will be held on this topic at the University of Heidelberg. A second article outlining the results of their research and further ideas concerning the potential shape of a civic watchdog for international finance will be published in the coming months.
Topics: Civil society Economics
Where do we go from here? Part I: The frustrations of British politics, Gerry Hassan and Anthony Barnett
In the first of a wide-ranging three part conversation, Anthony Barnett and Gerry Hassan discuss the state of British politics and democracy and how the left - weak and disorganised in the face of a resurgent neoliberalism - can propose and build alternatives to the dominant dogmas of the past thirty years.
Hi Gerry,
There is a strange mixture of moods here in political London. There is a Tory right, with Spectatorish leanings, used to dominating the argument across most of the print media and bullying the BBC. It is aghast at the coup Cameron has dealt them. He has got office, the highest validation of principle in the Tory cannon, yet he has won it by delivering the liberal Toryism they scorned (and hoped he was merely pretending to advocate).
It is a truism that Britain (and even, arguably, England) is a centre left society. But the ruling elite has never been and they are astounded by the coalition. This includes the BBC which refused to regard the 'database state' as important or report the fears of an intrusive state, which were very widespread, as 'relevant'. Mark Thompson, its Director General, recently told Broadcasting House that he favoured opening the archives as the BBC's coverage over the years gives a "pretty good portrait of people's lives and emotions". But no one who listens to its broadcasts of the past few years would come away with any understanding of why the Coalition has set about rolling back the intrusive, controlling state. The BBC, of course, is part of it, thanks to the license fee.
As for Labour, it is still in denial. A key advisor said that if only it can address people's feeling of "anxiety" the Coalition may split and it could find itself back in power in 18 months....
They will do what they can to bury the significance of Iraq - a great pity as dealing with it or electing a leader who, like Obama, opposed it from the start, is the only route back to office in the next five years.
The wider public likes what is happening. There is an openness, a lack of staleness, a sense of serious people dealing with serious issues, a fascination to see how they get on - we might return to this - a sense of invention and reasoned reasonableness which the public likes, while remaining sceptical and cautious and of course waiting for the punishment.
But how does it feel in Scotland? My sense is that both Cameron and Clegg are dedicated to reviving Union politics, though perhaps in very different ways. Will this appeal to people north of the border as well?
Cheers! Anthony
Dear Anthony,
Thanks for that. There is so much to consider, digest and think about. There is this utterly changed British landscape. There is what is going on in Scotland. The first Labour leadership election since 1994 and the prospect of the first Labour debate about what it stands for since the 1983 disaster. And then influencing all of this is the end of the thirty-year party – an opportunity to take stock of what Britain has become domestically and geo-politically.
If I address first Scotland, there is a strange feeling north of the border. There isn’t much sense of optimism, more a feeling of foreboding (which I think is everywhere with the impending cuts), combined with an element of smugness. Many people seem to think the return of the Tories is like the return of a bad B Movie – an old script they know the best tunes too – ‘same old Tories’, 'Tory cuts’ and ‘no mandate’.
It does not matter to this perspective that Scotland is very different – with a Parliament – or that the political situation is very different – with a Con-Lib Dem government.
There is a deep conservative impulse in large parts of Scotland – including in many self-defined radicals and left-wingers. Part of the whole home rule movement pre-devolution was about wanting to remain the same, to return to the civic and social sense of Britishness found between 1945-70. This of course isn’t an option in the UK, and that fact is going to be made even more explicit in the near-future.
This conservatism, found in the Scottish Labour Party, but also the SNP, Lib Dems, Scottish Tories, and much of civic Scotland, has little positive to offer. But the power and entrenchment of this conservatism is about to be tested.
The UK is at a major moment of flux, the existing political order stands humiliated, the economic assumptions of the last thirty years to which our entire political elite signed up is in tatters, and yet the sense that ‘there is no alternative’ still exists, given the lack of coherent, radical ideas. Neo-liberalism has been discredited, but is in a state of ‘undead’, not yet slain, like Arnie Schwarzenegger in one of those ‘Terminator’ films, where despite going through hell, pain and punishment, he still keeps moving. We really do need to ask what do we have to do to finally kill off neo-liberalism?
Best wishes, Gerry
Hi from Athens, Gerry,
There are two very different themes woven together in what you say. First, the big hunger for a different political way forward. Second, the wretched but also fascinating actuality of the here and now. On the first: nothing is at hand to "kill off" or slay neo-liberalism from the democratic left, as you ask. Hidden in this desire, certainly when expressed by others, is the assumption that if only a stake was driven through the heart of global capitalism socialism would awake, as if from too long a sleep.
My view is that until an alternative is developed, tested and wins support the present order won't and can’t be 'overthrown'. You can feel this here in Athens. What is the alternative to Greece paying its debts and accepting the hard road to a viable membership of the Eurozone? Defaulting? This could mean not just 20 per cent public sector pay cuts (as at present) but no pensions or public sector pay at all as the banks close. That way lies the army.
I agree with David Marquand that a new kind of politics is needed which is broadly a mix of left, green and republican values, but have to wonder if given the scale of the British, European and global crises which we face whether this is frankly up to the task, radical and transformative enough.
Against this backdrop, we still need a serious conversation about the multiple issues which face us here in the UK: the state of our democracy and politics, and how they don’t work (but addressing how this fits into these wider epochal issues). Also, how to make sense of the coming limited, flawed, electoral reform proposal of AV in the referendum. It could matter hugely in terms of starting a public claim on the state. But will people be persuaded by the Tory advertising agencies to endorse the serfdom of 'strong government'?
If they refuse to, it will hardly be groundbreaking, simply getting one knee off the ground. A lot may turn on the coming debate in the Labour Party about how and whether it can recover from defeat. It was immediately obvious when Cameron made his offer to the Lib Dems that Labour could have offered one so much better. I don't mean after the election, as Brown's attempt to oversee any coalition doomed it utterly. I mean in 1997, or after the 2001 election, or when Brown became leader in 2007, or after the expenses crisis broke in 2009. Four golden opportunities wasted. Of course, it would have meant Labour changing. Looking back we can see that despite all the talk of being 'new' and its embrace of globalisation, adoration of a deregulated City, military adventures and the Washington alliance, Labour remains deeply conservative, dedicated to power provided by a royalist state. Indeed what Cameron has shown is that Labour is more conservative than the Conservative party in this respect. I suspect that the leadership contenders don't understand this.
Cheers, Anthony
PS: I am back from Athens now. I see the six statements from the Labour leadership contenders. You wouldn’t know there was a national question in the UK, or that Europe matters, or that there is a general economic crisis even. As you have just noted in your post in OK. But I suspect there is a larger evasion going on, one that Jeremy Gilbert’s call for democracy in the Labour Party points towards. This is about how politics is conducted. Usually, this being a very backward political culture, the two are contrasted. (There is an interesting example of a political outsider – that’s a compliment - wrestling with the inadequacy of this opposition in Nat le Roux’s recent speech) Either we need a change in constitutional structure or we need a change in behaviour and a return to honorable mandarin efficiency. In fact these are not opposites. There is a media driven process that is dissolving party politics itself (see Peter Mair or Keith Sutherland). Yet consensus is also an anti-democratic impulse. Honest or not a representative democratic system has to be driven by party politics. The Labour contest assumes a traditional party form to politics. Yet the national fragmentation of the UK on its own points to the end of one-party rule.
Dear Anthony,
I take it you are asking to put to one side the crises of contemporary capitalism, of how we nurture and support our societies socially, environmentally and democratically, and how we live with the financial leviathan and insatiable beast of the aggressive, acquisitive market society of the last thirty years. But of course this also must shape the challenge, opportunity and the need for rethinking.
What form of politics and framework best suits the UK? Is a new unionism possible led by Cameron, or will the future belong to a post-nationalist politics? And to the constitutional reformers and radicals who have rightly been so critical of Westminster politics and the Ukanian state, what is the vision behind the radical, democratizing impulse? What is all the concern about processes, structure and reform for after socialism? Where is it meant to lead beyond a ‘normalising’ politics?
Today social democratic parties are in retreat everywhere; disorientated by the brutal politics of neo-liberal capitalism, and the temporary success of the ‘near-left’ of Blair and Clinton which offered a brief hope that they had identified a path of renewal and modernisation.
Where I think this takes us is that it is only possible to understand and address the British situation by looking at it in international and historical context. We have to go beyond what I see as the platitudes of a red, green, republican recasting of politics. This sounds a bit like the sort of politics the centre-left in Italy have practiced under Berlusconi, constantly widening their politics post-PCI to the point no one really knows what they stand for beyond ‘good governance’; and as we have seen populism vs. good governance is never enough.
The politics of the left are clearly exhausted. ‘Left’ has become associated with tribalism and defining very set limits of the tribe and community to exclude wavers and ‘traitors’. Left and green politics are not automatic bedfellows which can be added together in a coalition of new politics. The left, as with neo-liberalism, stands firmly for modernity, for believing the human soul, condition and the planet can be endlessly recast for their political project. Part of where we stand now is in the midst of the disaster of the modernist utopia, which has taken us through Stalin’s death camps to the neo-liberal catastrophe.
We need an even wider realignment than David Marquand was suggesting: a realignment which addresses not just mind, but body and soul, which involves rationalism, activism and doing things, and emotionalism. Yet, again, all of this needs to be for a wider purpose. After socialism, social democracy’s retreat, and the watered down vision of ‘progressive politics’, what does a politics drawing from centre-left values look like, say and what is it called?
This is a critical crossroads. The ‘long boom’ of the late 1990s and 2000s is over, neo-liberalism has shown itself to be another god that failed, yet there has been no major recanting and apologies from any of the leading figures of neo-liberalism or its main institutions. There is, unlike the last systemic crisis of the 1970s, no clear, radical alternative set of ideas critiquing the existing economic, social and political order.
We stand on the brink of a second neo-liberal revolution, as the numerous crises are used by finance capitalism and markets to justify eating up and destroying the last vestiges and institutions of social democratic values, across the Euro zone and advanced capitalism. The response to this cannot be the traditional left one of resistance and defending the remnants of ‘welfare capitalism’. Therefore, we need to look to a new age of radicalism. We need an ecumenical, global conversation about the challenges facing humanity and the planet - from the impending eco-crisis, to the kind of society and economy we wish to live in, and how we address the concentrations of power which the market and state throws up.
I think we cannot just talk about processes and structures any more, or about narrow or even wider constitutional reform in the UK. Instead, we desperately need to have a conversation about values, the kind of values advanced capitalist societies should promote, embed and advance.
Central to all of this are two elements: firstly, what kind of story/stories do we want to advance as a society? Social democracy used to have a powerful, plausible story; neo-liberalism - like it or not - has a story with actors, motivation and plots which poses as ‘the official future’. Secondly, there has to be an account of the economy. For the last two decades the left has been in retreat on political economy, appeasing globalisation in return for a share of the goodies. This version of the economy has to address the role of growth, the limits of growth, redistribution and ecological sustainability. Without this I fear we await the second installment of the neo-liberal revolution.
Gerry
This is the first of a three part conversation - part II will be published tomorrow.
Topics: Civil society Culture Democracy and government EconomicsBritish prime minister's terrorism allegations anger Pakistan, Jamie Munn
The Pakistani government has summoned British officials in Islamabad for talks, following controversial comments from British Prime Minister David Cameron, whilst on a visit to India last week. The suggestions from Cameron that Pakistan was not doing enough to combat the export of terrorism were met with anger by both officials in Islamabad and protestors on the streets of Pakistani cities.
Officials from Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) have already cancelled a planned trip to the UK, where counter-terrorism tactics were due to be discussed, and the Pakistani president, Asif Ali Zardari, is under increasing domestic pressure to do the same. Zardari is due to meet with Cameron at Chequers – the British prime minister’s official country residence – on Friday, followed by a political rally for his supporters within Britain’s one-million-strong Pakistani community. A statement from Pakistan’s information minister, Qamar Zaman Kaira, indicated that Zardari will also aim to correct Cameron’s “misinterpretation” of the country’s fight against terrorism.
A spokesperson from the UK Foreign Office confirmed that “the British high commissioner to Pakistan is meeting this morning with the [Pakistani] foreign minister, at the request of the ministry of foreign affairs." Images of a burning effigy of Cameron have received widespread attention in the British media.
Cameron’s said in a speech that "We cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country is allowed to look both ways and is able, in any way, to promote the export of terror, whether to India or whether to Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world." The fact that the comments were made in India, Pakistan’s historic rival, are also seen as antagonistic, and British officials are now trying to ensure that relations between the UK and Pakistan and not harmed. Wajid Shamsul Hasan, the Pakistani envoy in Britain, has tried to dissuade British Pakistanis from demonstrating against the comments prior to Zardari’s visit.
The remarks came less than a week after US documents on the war in Afghanistan linking Pakistani agents to Taliban officials were leaked by whistle-blowing website Wikileaks. Islamabad denied the accusations, saying that Pakistan is as much a victim of terrorism than any other country; more than 3,500 Pakistani civilians have been killed by terrorists over the past three years. Such allegations had already been aired in a recent report from the London School of Economics.
Cameron received further criticism on a visit to Turkey last week over his comments, directed towards Israel, that Gaza had become a “prison”, as well as a remark in America that Britain was the “junior partner” of the US.
The openSecurity verdict: British Prime Minister David Cameron’s open and frank comments over the past couple of weeks have been heralded by some as a ‘new style of diplomacy’. For many, including many British citizens and politicians, they have been viewed as unfortunate and un-diplomatic to say the least. Foreign Office veterans have raised eyebrows, expressed alarm and shuddered in dismay at a series of remarks that are all the more provocative for where they have been said as well as the content. Rebuking Pakistan in India, and Israel in Turkey cannot be described as delicate in the slightest. Pakistan is an important ally of the United Kingdom, both historically, with over one million people of Pakistani descent living in Britain, and strategically; Pakistan is vital to any solution for the conflict in Afghanistan. It carries influence and power within the region, and claims to carry the same anti-Taliban sentiment as the UK and the coalition forces.
The prime minister attacked Pakistan for “looking both ways”, but his own speech is unlikely to resolve difficulties emerging from the undeniable support the Taliban receives from sympathetic Pakistanis. He didn’t acknowledge the role and sacrifices that Pakistan has had in fighting the Taliban, and if President Zardari’s planned visit to London this week doesn’t manage to resolve the issue then any progress – past, present and future – made in Afghanistan may be put at risk; accusations that Pakistan is supportive of the Taliban, should they alienate Pakistan’s elite from the US and UK, could even be self-fulfilling, as the country turns to alternative guardians of its interests in the region other than ISAF forces and the Kabul government.
Feathers were also ruffled in the UK, when on a visit to the US, Cameron said that Britain and Britons should accept the ‘junior role’ in its relationship with the US, adding that that junior role extended back to 1940 during the Second World War, when Churchill was trying to persuade the US to join the allied effort against the Nazis. Other comments, made in Turkey, were seen as an attack on EU allies, France and Germany, during a pledge to battle EU states that are against Turkey joining the union. Israel also lodged protests after the prime minister characterised Gaza as a prison camp.
Britain’s multitudinous interests in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India - economic, military, and security - need to be balanced in statements from government officials. Britain needs to direct its efforts to bringing about reconciliation with Pakistan, but more importantly between Pakistan and India (their difficulties in part the reason for the sensitivity to these remarks), and Pakistan and Afghanistan, all still in dispute over borders established under British oversight.
Rockets fired from Sinai towards Israel and JordanRockets thought to have been fired from Egypt’s Sinai desert have hit Red Sea resorts in Jordan and Israel. One person has been killed and four injured as a result of the attack on Jordan; there are no reported casualties from the adjacent Israeli resort. "The Grad rocket landed in a public street near a major five star hotel and caused four injuries, with three persons lightly wounded and the other casualty in serious condition," a source from the Jordanian interior ministry told Reuters.
At least five rockets are reported to have been fired. One reached the Israeli resort of Eilat, one the nearby Jordanian city of Aqaba, and three landed in the Red Sea. Egypt has denied its territory was used to launch the attack, and indeed, it is rare for rockets towards Israel to be launched from the Sinai desert. Egyptian officials reiterated that they have a strong presence in the Sinai area and that no suspicious activity had been found.
Israel has warned of a recent rise in militant activity in the Sinai Peninsula and has tried to discourage its citizens from holidaying in the Eilat resorts, which are seen as vulnerable to attack. Rockets were fired towards the city from the peninsula in April, and a suicide bomber killed three people in there in 2007.
The attack comes after Israeli air strikes against Gaza over the weekend, which killed at least one person, and an explosion at the home of a senior Hamas commander that injured more than twenty; Israel has denied any involvement in the latter.
Jordan and Egypt are the only two Arab states to have full peace accords with Israel.
Obama confirms combat troop exit from Iraq by August
US President Barack Obama is set to announce today the confirmation of a withdrawal of American combat troops from Iraq by the end of August.
It comes on the same day as Washington and Baghdad clash over casualty numbers; US military figures put the number killed in July at 222, whilst Iraq says that 535 died – which would make July the most deadly month in the country for two years.
In released excerpts of a speech that Obama is due to give to the Disabled American Veterans convention he stated that "Shortly after taking office, I announced our new strategy for Iraq and for a transition to full Iraqi responsibility, and I made it clear that by 31 August, 2010, America's combat mission in Iraq would end. And that is exactly what we are doing, as promised, on schedule."
The US plans a full military exit by the end of 2011, but the ongoing political instability in Iraq makes that aim seem dubious. At the same time, America is increasing its presence in Afghanistan where 30,000 more troops are due to be sent.
Iran calls for presidential television debate with United StatesIranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called on US President Barack Obama to have a one-on-one television debate with him later this year, over the future of the world’s problems.
"Towards the end of summer we will hopefully be there for the [UN] General Assembly and I will be ready for one-on-one talks with Mr Obama, in front of the media of course. We will offer our solutions for world issues to see whose solutions are better," Ahmadinejad told a conference in Tehran. Ahmadinejad went on to say that US policy was based on “the law of the jungle … We have always favoured talks, Iranians have never, ever favoured war.”
The proposal comes as Tehran tries to deal with further sanctions from the UN and the EU over its alleged programme to produce nuclear weapons. The Iranian regime has always denied that its programme is for anything other than peaceful means.
Yesterday Obama’s main military advisor said that the US had a plan to attack Iran, if needed. Admiral Mike Mullen’s confirmation is a change to the usual rhetoric of “all options remain open”, but he stressed that it would be an option of last resort.
Chechen rebel leader resignsDoku Umarov, the Chechen rebel leader who claimed responsibility for the attacks on Moscow’s Metro system earlier this year that killed 40 people, is said to be resigning from his post ‘due to his age’.
Umarov, 46, has released a video in which he says that a younger comrade, Aslambek Vadalov, could lead “more energetically”. The video appeared on a French video sharing website, before being removed.
As well as the Moscow Metro attacks, Umarov, who took leadership of the Caucasus Emirate Islamist rebel group in 2006, also ordered the bombing of a train that was going from Moscow to St Petersburg, which killed 26 people in November 2009.
Umarov served as the security minister for the separatist Chechen state from 1996-99 and is viewed by both Russia and the United States as a terrorist.
UN forces in Sudan to inform government of all movementsUN peacekeeping forces in Sudan will now have to inform the government of all road movements and be subject to airport bag searches, government spokesperson Rabie Abdelati told the Reuters news agency yesterday.
Khartoum issued the directive alongside claims that the UN had failed to keep peace at refugee camps. Sudan claims that figures released by the UN estimating that 2.6 million people have been displaced and 300,000 killed since ethnic rebellions started in 2003 are exaggerated.
Country: UK Pakistan Afghanistan United States Israel Turkey Jordan Iraq Topics: ConflictoD Drug Policy Forum: Front Line Report - Week of August 2, 2010, Charles Shaw
We lead this week with two historic legislative developments in the US. Please parson the sarcasm, but it appears Congress was inspired last week to engage in a bit of rational thinking and actually do their jobs for once when they passed two significant pieces of legislation meant to begin reforming the thoroughly broken US criminal justice system.
On July 27th The U.S. House of Representatives passed bipartisan legislation to create a national commission to study the U.S. criminal justice system and make recommendations for reform. The bill passed under an expedited process that presumes unanimity unless a member of Congress objects. No member objected.
The bill comes at a time that the United State's growing prison population – fueled by the war on drugs - is becoming a political issue. The United States ranks first in the world in per capita incarceration rates, with just five 5 percent of the world's population but 25 percent of the world's prisoners. Roughly 500,000 Americans are behind bars any given night for a drug law violation. That is ten times the total in 1980, and more than all of western Europe (with a much larger population) incarcerates for all offenses.
Across the country – from California to Texas to New York – legislatures, and in some cases voters, are passing legislation to divert offenders to treatment instead of jail, reform mandatory minimum sentencing, and treat drug use more as a health issue instead of criminal justice issue. These efforts – motivated by concerns for saving taxpayer money, reducing racial disparities, and showing more compassion for people struggling with substance abuse problems - are gaining steam.
The House bill is identical to a bill in the U.S. Senate introduced by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA). That bill has passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and will most likely be voted on in the full Senate sometime this year. Sen. Webb (D-VA) has said, "either we have the most evil people in the world or we are doing something wrong with the way we approach the issue of criminal justice." And "the central role of drug policy in filling our nation's prisons makes clear that our approach to curbing illegal drug use is broken."
On Friday, July 30th, the House passed legislation reducing the two-decades-old sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses. The Senate passed an identical bill in March and the legislation is now heading to President Obama, who supports the reform effort. ["allegedly" supports reform ~CS]
Before the changes, a person with just five grams of crack received a mandatory sentence of five years in prison. That same person would have to possess 500 grams of powder cocaine to earn the same punishment. This discrepancy, known as the 100-to-1 ratio, was enacted in the late 1980s and was based on myths about crack cocaine being more dangerous than powder. Scientific evidence, including a major study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, has proven that crack and powder cocaine have identical physiological and psychoactive effects on the human body.
The 100-1 ratio has caused myriad problems, including perpetuating racial disparities, wasting taxpayer money, and targeting low-level offenders instead of dangerous criminals. African Americans comprise 82 percent of those convicted for federal crack cocaine offenses but only 30 percent of crack users, and 62 percent of people convicted for crack offenses were low-level sellers or lookouts.
It remains to be seen if Obama will keep his word and follow through with these reforms. His record is not the best, and when it comes to drug policy, he's outright lied.
(Sources: Drug Policy Alliance, Huffington Post)
To view the full text of H.R. 5143: National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2010
Here's a summary of this historic week from David Borden of the Drug War Chronicle:
It was a really big week in Washington, DC for drug policy reform, with medical marijuana becoming legal here, with a bill to do a big review of the criminal justice system passing the House, and with some long-awaited though partial reform to the infamous crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity passed and heading to the president's desk.
- National Mall, Washington, DCCongress, before going on recess, after almost 25 years of criticism finally enacted a reform, though only partial, to the infamous crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity.
- Medical marijuana is now legal in Washington, DC. Well, sort of. The Congressional review period for the local initiative legislation that enacted this has expired, which means it's clear to go. The city council still has some work to do before the regulations go into effect and before dispensaries can actually open, but it's happening.
- A companion bill to Sen. Jim Webb's legislation to convene a National Criminal Justice Commission has passed the House of Representatives.
Word also has it that the ONDCP's ad campaign, which research has demonstrated to be ineffective, is finally getting zeroed out, but we'll have more on that later. Also from Washington, the Veterans Administration is now allowing veterans with authorization to use medical marijuana under state law to do so without getting thrown out of VA pain treatment programs. Nationally, marijuana legalization polls continue to shift in our direction, and the latest poll on California's Prop 19 marijuana legalization initiative is encouraging.
(Source: Drug War Chronicle)
Film One: Everyone’s at it - AUGUST 2ND, 8PM
Film Two: The Life and Death of a Dealer - AUGUST 9TH, 8PM
Film Three: Birth of a Narco-state (director : Monica Garnsey) - AUGUST 16TH, 8PM
(Film Three, director Monica Garnsey)
Photography and Production by Sasha Djurkovic
Editors: Brand Thumim, Paul Carlin
This three-part series presented and directed by Angus Macqueen examines the global story of our drugs policies from the streets of Edinburgh to the poppy fields of Afghanistan, from consumption to demand to supply – concluding that the war on drugs is more harmful than the drugs themselves.
Film One: Everyone’s at it - explores the taboos against talking about drugs honestly: the police fail to control supply (in Scotland seizing just 1% of the heroin consumed), criminals make money, demand only increases – with the advent of synthetic drugs like GBL, banning and policing are becoming ever more random. When will we come up with an honest policy our children can believe in which faces the issues and realities head on?
Film Two: The Life and Death of a Dealer - Thomas looks, through the life and death of one dealer in New York, at the social costs of the Drugs War – where the use of law and order to deal with a health issue has created a cycle of crime and punishment that addresses none of the real issues. It also creates ghettoes in our main cities – often racially defined. Human Rights Watch has established that all races in the US drugs in equal numbers, yet over 80% of those imprisoned are Black or Latino. (The story is no different in Britain.)
Film Three: Birth of a Narco-State - We are told British soldiers are dying in Afghanistan fighting an ideological enemy in the War of Terror. Film Three shows how the illegality of drugs - and our war on drugs - is fuelling a long-term civil war: Western demand for heroin and the huge monies it generates not only finances warlords on both sides, it is corrupting the very government we are fighting to protect. The film engages with those working to establish some sort of order – in the face of overwhelming odds. We are creating another Colombia or Mexico but now, with the war on Islamic extremism – welcome to the world’s first Narco-Theocracy.
The more things (appear to) change, the more they stay the same.
The odds of getting a death sentence for killing a white person is about three times higher than for killing an African American with the race of the defendant virtually irrelevant, according to a new study out of North Carolina that echoes earlier findings on capital punishment.
Researchers Michael Radelet of the University of Colorado and Glenn Pierce of Northeastern University in Boston combed through three decades of death sentences for the study, to be published next year in the North Carolina Law Review.
The study will be used in capital appeals, according to an article in the Daily Camera of Boulder, Colorado. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that statistical evidence of racial bias could not be considered in individual cases, but states could pass their own legislation to do so. North Carolina has 159 people now awaiting execution. As Brittany Anas reports:
(Source: Forensic Psychology in the News)
NEWS FROM THE INTERNATIONAL DRUG POLICY CONSORTIUM
17 Nov 2010, London, UK
Participants will discuss the evidence base for drug and alcohol recovery models and what the implications are for therapeutic interventions. Using examples of best practice the Conference will explore how drug treatment systems can gear up for the increased demand for recovery options from the public, the political support for recovery options, and how to make this possible within the economic climate. For more information, visit the conference website.
IDPC and Transform Drug Policy Foundation co-hosted the Drug Policy Networking Zone – a busy and dynamic space that was shared with the Harm Reduction and Human Rights Networking Zones. The key message of the Drug Policy Networking Zone was a call to consider the costs of the dominant approach to drug control both in monetary and human terms. The week-long event included panel discussions put together by IDPC members such as Release, the Malaysian AIDS Council, Intercambios and the Correlation Network, and other partners such as the International HIV/AIDS Alliance, the International Doctors for Healthy Drug Policies and the International Center for Science in Drug Policy. Discussions were lively and varied and involved topics as diverse as law enforcement and harm reduction, advocacy strategies, reform of the UN Drug Control Conventions and the possibilities for a regulated drugs market. IDPC launched the Drug Policy Guide in two sessions and was proud to disseminate the newly published Russian version of the Guide. See Transform’s photo blog of the zone.
The European Harm Reduction Network (EuroHRN) was recently launched to reduce the health and social harms related to drugs and the policy environment, by promoting the human rights and health of people who use drugs through collective advocacy, research and information exchange. To join please go to the EuroHRN website or email maria.phelan@ihra.net.
The Transnational Institute (TNI) and the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) have launched a new website to provide up-to-date analysis of trends in drug policy reform and videos that show the human face of drug laws’ collateral damage in Latin America.
The Centro de Investigación 'Drogas y Derechos Humanos' (CIDDH) has developed a webpagein which the organisation intends to provide a virtual analytical, graphical and cartographic tour of the various locations involving cocaine trafficking in the Andes Region.
This discussion paper promotes a health-oriented approach to drug dependence. It outlines a model of referral from the criminal justice system to the treatment system that is more effective than compulsory treatment, which results in less restriction of liberty, is less stigmatising and offers better prospects for the future of the individual and the society. Read the paper.
Drawing upon independent evaluations and interviews conducted with 13 key stakeholders in 2007 and 2009, this paper critically analyses the criminal justice and health impacts against trends from neighbouring Spain and Italy. It concludes that contrary to predictions, the Portuguese decriminalisation did not lead to major increases in drug use. Read the paper.
In August 2009, the Argentina Supreme Court declared legislation criminalising drug possession for personal consumption as unconstitutional. This TNI briefing discusses the background of that decision, the small steps taken since, but argues that there is still much to do before a genuine reform agenda can be implemented. Read the paper.
This TNI paper discusses the “substance-oriented approach” Dutch authorities implemented to to scare off potential small-scale cocaine smugglers. The focus was on the drugs, rather than the couriers, and on incapacitating the smuggling route, rather than deterrence by incarceration. Read the paper.
This Eurasian Harm Reduction Network position paper is based on an evidence-informed approach and promotes the respect, observance and protection of human rights. Read the paper in English and Russian.
(Source: IDPC)
Robert Perkinson, Soros Fellow and author of Texas Tough: The Rise of America's Prison Empire, reviews for the New York Times the new book by Tom Feiling.
The Drug Enforcement Administration Museum and Visitors Center may be America’s most uninspiring attempt at war commemoration. Its low-budget displays, stuffed into a sterile building near the Pentagon, strive for a good-versus-evil story line but exude uncertainty. Snapshots of officers atop piles of impounded narcotics fail to convey the urgency of battle. Confiscated drug paraphernalia showcase wily ingenuity as much as social menace. But across the Potomac, next to Congressional Cemetery, rises a more fitting tribute to the “war on drugs”: Washington’s city jail, through which 18,000 inmates pass each year, 89 percent of them black and three-quarters of them incarcerated for nonviolent of fenses. With its X-shaped towers surrounded by razor wire, the sprawling complex devours resources but, most criminologists agree, does comparably little to protect the public. It stands as a monument to punitive government bloat.
An impassioned and wide-ranging if occasionally jumbled survey of “the white trade” and its enemies, Feiling’s book (published last year in Britain as “The Candy Machine”) begins with the extraction of the ancient coca leaf’s most potent alkaloid, cocaine, in the mid-19th century. Possessing wondrous qualities — a pharmaceutical company boasted that cocaine could “make the coward brave, the silent eloquent, and render the sufferer insensitive to pain” — the product swept the globe as an additive to medicine, wine (Ulysses S. Grantwas an early quaffer) and, of course, Coca-Cola, whose red and white colors, Feiling writes, pay homage to the Peruvian flag.
COCAINE NATION
How the White Trade Took Over the World
By Tom Feiling
351 pp. Pegasus Books. $27.95.
Now four decades old, America’s drug war, initiated in its modern form by Richard Nixon, has burned through $1 trillion and helped make the United States the most locked-down country on earth. Yet victory still recedes from view. In 1970, some 20 million Americans had experimented with illegal drugs; by 2007, 138 million had. While drug purity has increased, street prices over the long term have dropped — precisely the opposite trajectory promised by drug warriors. Small wonder that a growing number of skeptics, from George Will to George Soros, have called for a serious change of course.
With a new regime in Washington, led by a president who admits to having used cocaine in his youth and a drug czar who rejects martial metaphors, this is a good time to look back on America’s first “war without end” and its pre-eminent target, as the documentary filmmaker Tom Feiling does in “Cocaine Nation.”
Mexican drug trafficking organizations make billions each year smuggling drugs into the United States, profiting enormously from the prohibitionist drug policies of the US government. Since Mexican president Felipe Calderon took office in December 2006 and called the armed forces into the fight against the so-called cartels, prohibition-related violence has killed nearly 25,000 people (the Mexican attorney general put the death toll at 24,826 on earlier this month), with a death toll of nearly 8,000 in 2009 and over 6,000 so far in 2010. The increasing militarization of the drug war and the arrest of dozens of high-profile drug traffickers have failed to stem the flow of drugs -- or the violence -- whatsoever. The Merida initiative, which provides $1.4 billion over three years for the US to assist the Mexican government with training, equipment and intelligence, has so far failed to make a difference.Here are a few of the latest developments in Mexico's drug war:
(Source: Drug War Chronicle)
- California Senator Looks to Double Punishment for Pot Brownies
Fire Dog Lake reported last week:
"The Senate could vote on a bill in just a few days that needlessly DOUBLES the federal fines and jail time for pot brownies. Pushing a bill to double the penalties for medical marijuana products like brownies is a waste of time for the US Senate and the country. With Congress finally taking important steps to reduce the prison population, it just doesn’t make sense to fill up those same prisons by doubling penalties for marijuana brownies. At a time when Congress is taking important steps trying to reduce the prison population, Senator Dianne Feinstein is trying to increase those numbers for... marijuana brownies. This isn't just stupid; it's dangerous."
Dianne Feinstein is a big opponent of Prop 19, the California initiative that would legalize marijuana in the state. Her bill aims to fan the flames of hysteria around marijuana legalization. She wants to distract from the real reasons for legalization: ending our failed war on marijuana, fighting the Mexican drug cartels, and providing critical tax revenues to cash-strapped cities.
(Source: Fire Dog Lake)
Thousands of families live off the cultivation of cannabis in this region that stretches more than 11,000 square miles. The growing of cannabis is commonly referred to as "the culture of kif," (kif is a term for the dried bud of the female marijuana plant). Farmers say the area's harsh climate makes it impossible to grow anything else.
Although it is illegal to cultivate cannabis, it remains one of Morocco’s most lucrative sources of income. Morocco is estimated to have grown 53,000 tons of cannabis in 2005, according to the most recent figures from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Most of the marijuana is processed into hashish. European countries complain that Morocco is the prime source of the cannabis smuggled into their territories.
The Moroccan government claims to be cracking down on hashish production in accordance with several international treaties.
Since 2003, Morocco has received $28 million euros from the European Union to eradicate the cultivation of cannabis. In addition the United States has given $43 million, between 2005 and 2012, to help farmers find new crops to replace marijuana.
(more)
(Source: Global Post)
The AV referendum - four possible outcomes, Anthony Barnett
The following are the notes I worked up after a talk I was invited to give yesterday to the garden party of the Hackney Liberal Democrats. I hope to develop the idea that there are four potential outcomes of the Referendum and I’ll do a short post on some of the discussion that followed. This is also an early contribution to OK’s new section, Referendum Plus.
I am happy to speak to this Liberal Democrat garden party today and I am going to do so in a direct, non-partisan fashion. Arsenal is playing a friendly with Celtic down the road. In a fortnight the real season begins. By the time it ends, the shape of British politics may be transformed; including perhaps how friendly Westminster is to Scotland.
At the heart of the change is the referendum on the voting system, proposed for 5 May. It is hard to exaggerate both its potential significance, as the public directly decides an aspect of how we are ruled, and the huge effort that will be made to limit, constrain, and block off that significance to try and make sure having people decide policy directly comes to be experienced as an expensive, pointless circus (thus ensuring the political elite retains its monopoly).
I have been asked to talk about the referendum and the purple people movement to ‘Take Back Parliament’ as we look forward to the ‘Yes’ campaign. Let’s leave how any campaign should be taken forward to the discussion.
I want to talk about the political context. We are in a moment of uncertainty. People are interested (are they?) partly because they are not sure what to make of the Coalition or indeed the referendum. Rather than give a campaigning speech in this context I’d like to encourage a conversation to explore what is happening.
There are three things that need to be said about the coalition and its larger significance for the UK.
1. Its chief architect is David Cameron. Nick Clegg is getting most of the flack but, even though he is a bold co-architect, it is not a relationship of equals. On balance he is the follower not the leader of the Coalition. Now Cameron has a clear double-project. He wants to continue as Prime Minister for as long as possible at the head of a ruling Conservative Party, refashioned to be attractive not toxic for voters as a whole, and for the many significant minorities. He’d like this liberal conservatism to give him majority party rule, with his political culture and not Tebbit’s predominating. Cameron has, therefore, both a party and a national governing strategy. They give him a Coalition exit strategy, with the Tories transformed in their inner spirit and outer appeal. It could be before or after the next election, but he has already called for an “electoral truce” between Lib Dems and Tories in 2015 in his recent interview in the Mail.
2. Economically what matters are not the cuts. The British public has a masochistic respect for pain and domination (hence its putting up with winner-takes-all elections!). It’s the pay back. Thatcher had North Sea Oil, give-away council house ownership, a successful war, and even then her proportion of the popular vote went down in 1983 from 1979. The Coalition can’t get pay-back unless there is economic growth. The economic experts I respect say there might have been growth under Darling’s strategy and there most likely will not be growth under Osborne’s. We will see. We may be seeing by May next year.
3 Quite separate – though woven in with economic policy – is the fundamental issue of honesty. There is now a deep disenchantment with the political elite. It is different in kind from the friendly, if biting, cynicism and satirical contempt for politicians that marked British life and was an expression of affection. This is now changing, perhaps irrevocably, into the dominant feeling that ‘they’ are loathsome and enjoy an undemocratic racket. A number of tributaries flow into this river. The nature of the EU and the bad faith of politicians who deny the degree of its sovereignty; the Iraq war, both the lies and the betrayal of our fighting traditions; the bankers romp and the double-standards of the bonus-takers being given public subsidies; the influence of Rupert Murdoch and corporate power; the evasiveness of policy towards England. To switch metaphors from wet to dry: the Parliamentary expenses crisis was the spark that lit a fire that was fuelled by this long and more important list. It did so because it revealed a culture of permissiveness and entitlement amongst those who we elected to protect us from misrule. What this means is that the issue of ‘honesty’ has become much more than a matter of ‘rotten apples’: it has become a gut issue of legitimacy.
These three factors come together in the Coalition’s emergency budget. This was presented as “fair” and “progressive”. But what if after January, as VAT rises to 20 per cent, it becomes clear that the bottom 5 or 10 per cent are paying more, proportionally, than the top 5 or 10 per cent of earners? Even if there is growth and the cuts are not as bad as are being touted, it may not be forgiven. For once again the justification for a defining issue would have been untrue. Like WMD and Iraq. The Iraq war was wrong and misconceived, of course, irrespective of WMD. But the lies made the mistake unforgivable because by revealing bad faith on a central issue ‘trust’ was shattered. Similarly, whether or not the economic and political policy behind the budget is woefully misconceived, the question of whether it was also fair and “progressive” can be judged on its own terms. If people come to see that there was a dishonest justification for a budget that set the financial framework for the next five years, this will reproduce and reinforce the larger crisis of legitimacy threatening Westminster and Whitehall.
I suspect that fear of this crisis of legitimacy is one of the drivers behind the rush to far-reaching measures that marks the coalition. On Saturday Francis Maude strongly criticised.
both Thatcher and Blair for “not pushing ahead vigorously enough, and quickly enough, in terms of reform”. On the face of it, it is rather odd. Why should a Conservative government feel it has to judge its success on its being ever more radical? Being ‘tough’ about financial integrity and ‘the nation’s budget’ is one thing. Why the urge to reform everything else?
There is a good reason as well as a bad one. The good reason is that the British state has indeed been bloated with consultancy fees, IT schemes, overpaid senior civil servants, and an expansion of Whitehall fed by New Labour’s statism, a special variant that used the state to subsidise commercial interests. This linked to the intrusive culture of surveillance, incarceration, and building a national network of identity checks and controls summed up by the phrase “database state”.
The Coalition has brought about a swift change in the culture of state power: less intrusive and controlling, respectful of liberty as well as less costly, which is undoubtedly more progressive than New Labour’s. It is very welcome indeed.
But there is also a downside to the rush to radicalism. The politicians know that the change we really want is to change them: the political class. They know that we’d like to get rid of their form of government and replace it with a democracy. To head off this demand they feel the need to stand before us and say, “We are delivering change”. If I am right, this is one reason why a conservative administration is now obsessed with change. It’s the price they have to pay to conserve themselves - and a British system that gives them and their friends their privileges. There is in this sense a reactionary side to their urge for change.
This is the fraught context of the referendum, whose swift implementation is part of the hasty radicalism of the Coalition.
Now why do we need a referendum on our voting system? A foundation stone of the peculiar form of British dishonesty is our dishonest elections. The present system is defended because its crude simplicity allows us to “kick the rascals out”. But we can never clean up power in Westminster and Whitehall until we have cleaned up how we “vote the rascals in”.
It is therefore very important to link the campaign for a Yes vote on the AV referendum to the profound need for more honest politics.
The problem is that what is on offer is compromised. I’m not against coalitions or coalition agreements, especially when one can say ‘this policy comes from this party and that one from the other’. In this case, however, the referendum is internally compromised. A referendum that gives ‘the people the power’ to choose, as both Clegg and Cameron have claimed (recall the exceptional need for fundamental honesty), would give the people a choice that included a PR system, whether or not people voted for it. But here we see that the Tories would not allow this choice to be put to the people and the Lib Dems are collaborating with this lack of trust.
Because of all this, with the Coalition rushing forward while simultaneously seeking to preserve and contain, what is going to matter is not just whether there is a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ but also the way in which the outcome comes about. This means we now face four possible outcomes. The four are:
1. A resounding ‘no’ in which a majority of the whole electorate support the status quo. Like serfs voting for their masters to have good whips the public backs ‘strong government’ and safe seats and winner-takes-all-politics. This will confirm the allegiance of the people to the current regime and crush hope of reform.
2. A weak ‘yes’ in which after much hoo-ha AV is embraced with a sigh of relief that resounds though the land and the thought of needing to ‘do it again’ produces a shudder. A great effort will have produced something as close as possible to what we have. It will thereby become a “typically British” partial adaptation, the function of which is to head off the real changes we need.
Both these alternatives are fundamentally conservative.
3. Or we could have a ‘no’ vote on a derisory turnout, with many spoilt ballot papers, amidst a mixture of contempt, derision and a feeling that it is a con. In this case a ‘No’ accompanied by widespread exposure of the broken nature of the British state will deepen the demand for change not take it off the agenda.
4. Or we could have a powerful ‘yes’ vote consciously campaigned for as a good in itself by people who open admit it is the thin edge of the wedge, a first step in a reform movement that aims to replace the now unfair and dishonest ‘sovereignty of parliament’ with a democratic constitutional settlement.
The latter describes my stand. But irrespective of whether you share it, I think that we have to be honest about our aims and intentions because the public is smelling rats. It does not want to be misled.
You may recall the verbal twist that started on posters carried by demonstrators opposing the Iraq War and ended up on the cover of the Economist. By switching the position of two letters in his name, Blair became Bliar.
To be a Bliar means to mislead by claiming to be sincere. It is a repugnant blend – smoothie to the lips and toxic to the stomach. The danger the Coalition, and especially Nick Clegg, runs at the moment is being tainted as Bliars when it comes to the central claim that they are turning power upside down (Cameron on Big Society) and giving people power (Clegg).
We must make sure that as popular advocates of the ‘Yes’ campaign we are not contaminated as Bliars. When it comes to democratic principles we need to be honest or there is no point in winning.
Country: UK Topics: Democracy and governmentPetraeus's militias: the risk of civil war, Carlo Ungaro
There was a surreal quality to July’s Kabul Conference on the future of Afghanistan. This also contributed to shedding some more light on the differences in approach between the military and civilian components of the Nato forces inside the Country.
An example of this dangerous dichotomy can be seen in the proposal, made by general Petraeus on the very eve of the conference, to encourage armed resistance to the insurgency at a local level. Both the timing and the substance of this proposal were certainly debatable, and, in fact, potentially dangerous.
It is therefore not surprising that the idea was greeted with reservations by President Karzai, and generated scepticism from those who have a memory of recent Afghan history, and I allude not to the epic battles against the British Empire, but to the post-soviet years. During that occupation, local warlords had been encouraged and financed by the “west” and by Pakistan. Left to themselves, they led the country into a senseless, violent civil war, opening the doors, at the end of the day, to those very Taliban forces we are ostensibly out to defeat. It was was thought that arming warlords and tribal leaders (the difference is not always clear to outsiders), thus giving an official blessing to their military initiatives, would create a thorn in the side of the invaders. This was undeniably true, but, after the much-heralded departure of the Soviet troops, an agreement having been found between the two superpowers to cease financing armed activity in Afghanistan, the Kabul government found itself deprived of any vestige of national authority, while once relatively peaceful regions were turned into veritable battlegrounds.
Some observers, and I among these, have been advocating the formal decentralization of Afghanistan, into a structure more akin to a federation than the highly centralized system envisaged by the constitution. Past experience indicates that Afghanistan will not have a viable political future if the entire structure of leadership is left to a government, bereft of authority, isolated in the capital, Kabul.
The creation of a local feeling of greater autonomy, as well as showing a more appreciable respect for local traditions and, above all, allowing the provinces to govern themselves would therefore seem like a sensible idea well deserving further exploration. Local authority, for example, is now mostly in the hands of governors – often of different ethnic extraction to the ruled – imposed by the central government and never subjected to electoral scrutiny or accountability. In a country traditionally dominated by tribal and ethnic loyalties, this situation further lessens trust in the national government.
When, in 2005, I helped monitor the local elections in the Herat area, I had a first-hand view of how important local politics could be, as compared to the greater picture of national political life. There was much genuine involvement of the electorate – both male and female – and the municipal council which emerged was made up of motivated and competent men and women, who, of course, were deprived of any authority to act.
The arming of local militias should therefore not constitute a priority and should certainly not be the initial but perhaps one of the very last steps in a process of decentralization, which, because of its audacity and novelty ought to be preceded by serious and extensive political debate, with ample tribal participation (in other words an Afghan Jirga) even if this means including some suspected “warlords” in the process.
Options for the solution of the Afghan dilemma rest not with those seemingly in power, whose actions are obviously conditioned by the presence of foreign armies, but in the hands of the Nato partners who, in reality, rule the country and have the ultimate decision-making power.
The fact is that a choice has to be made as to whether the leadership in the Afghan venture can finally pass from military to civilian hands. The firing of General McChrystal notwithstanding, the entire operation still appears to be exclusively military led. No matter what amount of wisdom – if any - has been generated at the Kabul conference, this situation can only lead to further misunderstanding and failure.
The formula indicated by general Petraeus seems likely to bring that troubled country to a repetition of the civil war of the nineties, with the added incentive – a sort of “winner take all” bonus – of the opium poppy crops which have never prospered as they are prospering now, plus, obviously, the enticement of the “newly discovered” mineral riches.
If any hope remains for a solution of the Afghan problem, this has to rest on a firm civilian international, as well as local, leadership with strong military backing. The remarks issued by Petraeus on 4 July for the need for greater military-civilian cooperation do not bode well and all the indications are that the military will continue to call the shots.
The fact is that the initiative for cooperation between civilians and the military should never be left to the latter for they, out of their basic training, inevitably see it as a military leadership with the unquestioning acceptance of the civilians. They seem unwilling, one could say almost psychologically unable, to place themselves on an equal footing or in a subordinate position.
Meanwhile, the best that can be done both by Nato and by the Afghans, is to forget about the 20 July conference, which was worse than useless, and which could actually reveal itself as a turning point towards final disaster.
Khushboo: sex, movies, politics, Nandini Ramachandran
Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Five years ago, the Tamil actress Khushboo said something innocuous in the course of an interview: she expressed surprise that adult men expected virgin brides, and went on to say that it was prudent to use protection. I gather (the original interview was impossible to trace) she said so within the pages of a sex survey: a titillating cocktail of statistics, porn, and pop psychology that the news glossies run in slow weeks in the hopes of drawing out a less repressed Indian. (Sample question: do you routinely participate in mixed-gender orgies with your spouse?) In a sea of salacious oh-no-you-wouldn’t content, Khushboo’s plug for protection and sex-ed appears remarkably level-headed.
Khushboo acknowledged people had sex outside of marriage in a survey based on that exact premise. The culture-warriors, of which species India has an infinite variety, understood that to mean she endorsed it. Of course, she might have added that people enjoy sex of every stripe, she might have recommended fornication fervently and described as much in vivid and scurrilous detail. This might make her later fate slightly more comprehensible. Unfortunately for both of us, posterity has only recorded the most responsible of her comments, and has judged her extremely harshly for them.
The fracas followed a week later, a long time in news cycles; a flawless edifice built around the magic point where text starts to get flayed of its context for popular amusement. In the intervening time, Khushboo had raised the ire of a fellow member of the Tamil film fraternity by successfully forcing an apology from him when he likened actresses to prostitutes. To the extent that actresses in Tamil Nadu are routinely sexually exploited, the noble hero was certainly right, yet I doubt his analogy was motivated by feminist concerns about equality of labour and the casting couch. This man had some politicos in his posse, as such men do, and they obligingly raised a ruckus on the flimsy grounds they were forced to work with.
Khushboo is emblematic of the gypsy-actresses of independent India. Bollywood is the nerve centre of a whole host of interconnected, osmotic regional cinemas; it leaches off talented folk and replaces them with its discards. This is especially true of actresses, and some of Bollywood’s most famous faces are South Indians and Bengalis who have learnt Hindi on the job. Actors travel less successfully, and have longer shelf lives besides; an actor can afford to stick around and hope to be discovered in his 30s, an actress must make a place for herself by 25. Khushboo was one such nomad- after a few years attempting to break into Bollywood during the ‘80s, the Gujarati traipsed down south to find better luck.
It was the Tamil film industry that gave her a lasting home and a measure of fame. I do not understand Tamil and cannot speak for her skills as a thespian; but I do respect statistics, and Khushboo has made an astonishing number of movies in every south Indian language, though she remained primarily a Tamil actress. This is no small feat for a born Gujarati: Tamil is a complex language and the accent is near-impossible for a non-native speaker, yet I am told she speaks perfect, uninflected Tamil in dulcet tones.
Unlike the average Bollywood starlet, south Indian celebrities are rarely nationally recognised. Pay scales, similarly, are undoubtedly lower the further you go from glitzy Bombay, especially for women. However, regional cinema has a devoted, often rabid audience, and popular actors from the southern film world usually consider politics their retirement plan. Actresses are less lucky and terribly treated, even in comparison with Bollywood, itself no bastion of equal rights and fair play. The ones who strike a chord get a decent run as such things go: Khushboo, for instance, has had temples and recipes dedicated to her in the course of her decade-spanning career. Even after her film career waned (and she turned 35), she had a thriving career as a talk show host and television ‘personality’, and was well ensconced in Tamil society and popular culture. That was five years ago. Since then, the woman has been lynched, threatened, humiliated and hauled around the legal system for observing that people had sex, that sex has consequences, and that it is best to protect against them.
In the tragic farce tradition of Indian politics, the sordid incident dragged in a far deeper malaise than the shallow comment warranted. The motivating force behind the ugly incident is a deepening shadow over the once cosmopolitan Indian South: a growing regional xenophobia that fuels many of the peninsula’s burgeoning conflicts. A more detailed analysis of the incident and the identity politics behind it can be found in Tushar Dhara’s essay “Reverse Culture Jamming” in the SARAI Foundation’s 2006 reader Turbulence For the purposes of this post, suffice it to say that Khushboo, once a goddess in Tamil Nadu, became the focal point of a raging debate about ‘Tamil Culture’ and its vulnerability to ‘pollution’ from outsiders (whom the actress, owing to her Gujarati-Muslim origin, ostensibly represented). Criminal cases, on legally mystifying grounds, were filed against both Khushboo and Suhasini Manirathnam, her sole comrade-in-arms from the film community. The Madras High Court refused to go near the affair, despite the egregious attack on both liberty and privacy, forcing the Supreme Court to step in and finally dismiss the cases.
It took the intervention of the highest court in the land to uphold India’s constitution (and common sense) by confirming that opinions and facts aren’t illegal; to ‘prove’ that the alleged criminality hounding the poor women is utter baloney whipped up by crazed fanatics.
The latest news on the Khushboo front is the speculation that she is getting ready to join the Congress party and stand for public office. This seems a fortuitous alliance for the protagonists: she is the heroine of the moment, and one of her few political allies during the mess was Chidambaram’s lawyer son. The charismatic Khushboo, conversely, might help the flailing and insignificant Tamil Nadu Congress establish a foothold in the famously insular state. Her other political option is the regional DMK, also a member of the ruling UPA coalition. Karunanidhi’s daughter Kanimozhi is another rare Khushboo champion. Her feminist credentials, such as they are, conflict with important factions within the party: it was an influential DMK lackey (and fellow member of Karunanidhi’s clan) who offered the ‘protesters’ a forum in the Tamil media. It might be stretching the (admittedly loopy) logic of public affairs in India to expect any propaganda machine to switch seamlessly from vilifying a woman to deifying her. Irrespective of her decision, the saddest consequence of the persecution is the likelihood that the actress’s radicalism, if it did truly exist, is by now well and thoroughly played out.
Country: India Topics: Civil society Culture EqualityIndia-Pakistan talks: the need for a grand negotiating strategy, Medha Bisht
On 16 July 2010, the Foreign Ministers of India and Pakistan concluded bilateral talks in Islamabad. Precisely, a year before, in July 2009, Manmohan Singh and Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani issued a joint statement at Sharm-el Sheikh. Though the venue had changed, what remained was the scathing critical eye of the media and lack of diplomatic foresight to shape a positive trajectory for India-Pakistan relations. What went wrong in Islamabad? Media mismanagement, lack of political will, the premature meeting of foreign secretaries, domestic dynamics, are some catchword explanations to describe the failure of the Islamabad talks. While all of these are fitting explanations, a detailed analysis could perhaps provide useful insights.
“Claim” tactics are the first reason for the failure of talks. Pakistan claims that the issue of terrorism on which India has taken a positional stand since 26/11 has impeded progress. Meanwhile, many in India claim that Pakistan’s one point agenda of Kashmir as the core issue often obfuscates the genuine intent of engagement. This positional posturing has unfortunately created an asymmetry of interests on both sides as the stakes on these issues are high at the domestic level. The ripple effect of the Indian home secretary’s statement linking the ISI to the 26/11 terror attacks just before the talks were to commence is indicative not only of the embedded distrust, but also reflects the appeal and proclivity of India-Pakistan engagement to spoilers. Though Manmohan Singh has expressed explicit disappointment over the timing of the statement, the deadlock suggests that premature claiming tactics can interfere with the spirit of engagement. The thrust of the engagement should therefore be to frame an agenda which points towards a potential joint win-win possibility.
“Domestic political structures” is the second reason for the failed talks, as they clearly seem to be guiding the engagement strategy of both sides. Though not surprising in a democratic set-up, coordination of internal and external facets is perhaps the only way to move forward. However, flexibility in exploring creative solutions on the bilateral front has taken a back seat, given the reigning constraints on the representative negotiators. This is quite reflective in the outcome of the present talks, which reveal the overriding impact of domestic structures on bilateral negotiations. General Kayani’s meeting with Zardari and Gilani just before their meeting with the Indian foreign minister is quite suggestive of the army’s role in shaping the hawkish posture of the civilian government. It is therefore not surprising that the Pakistan establishment continue to take an extreme position on Kashmir.
Meanwhile, on the Indian side too, a clear lack of consensus is noticeable. The varying sets of concerns that different ministries and political parties share is perhaps the reason for this. For instance, while the home ministry is concerned about homeland security, the defence ministry is concerned about increasing infiltration and import of terrorism into the Kashmir Valley. Meanwhile, the ministry of economic affairs is arguably the only ministry where visible steps towards converging interests on cooperation can be identified. Complicating this situation further are the opinions and ideologies of various political parties in India, who through their own agendas can weaken the political posturing of the central government.
Given these myriad challenges, it is necessary therefore to formulate a cohesive agenda, mobilize support amongst domestic constituents in order to define the key principals which can be agreed by all actors and parties. The key principals would not only enable effective posturing on issues at the bilateral level, but would also engage the key constituencies at the domestic level. Though there are various ways of engaging domestic constituents, a multi-level, multi-layered engagement perhaps is most instructive. Much effort therefore needs to be undertaken at the domestic level before offering engagement at the bilateral level. The domestic-external interface in India-Pakistan relations is thus an important key to break the diplomatic impasse.
“Unimaginative grand engagement” is the third and final reason behind the failure of the talks. Grand engagement means to utilize available means to reach the desired ends. Thus it is appropriate to ask at this juncture as to what really is the end goal of India-Pakistan rapprochement. Is it just political posturing or is it to arrive at joint problem solving approaches on issues which impact the lives of common people in both countries?
‘Decomposing Negotiations’ is a famous negotiation technique proposed by Howard Raiffa, which propounds categorization of issues into various groupings or subcategories. In the India-Pakistan case, issues can be grouped under three categories: economics, security, territory. While this categorization is just illustrative, under the first category (economics), trade and economic issues can be covered, under the second (security), support to terrorism from Pakistani soil and infiltration from Pakistan can be discussed, and under the third (territory), the issue of Kashmir can be discussed. Though divided in different grouping, trade-offs within one category, say economics, should be tied to trade-offs within other categories, say security. Each category can be further divided into various sub-categories, thus increasing the zone of engagement. Raiffa suggests that interdependence between various sectors should be looked at, rather than undertaking an isolated sectoral engagement on specific issues.
In other words, sub-negotiations on economic issues should not be solved without taking into account the grand trade-offs on issues under other categories. The visits between home secretaries and foreign ministers, which took place between 24 June and 16 July 2010, should be guided by this approach. This integrationist perspective, however, would require close co-ordination between various agencies and ministries, as well as clarity of the desired end that the two countries seek to arrive at. Moreover, on the territorial issue, dialogue with potential stakeholders in Kashmir is important. Internal dialogue between New Delhi and the state government as well as engagement with the opposition parties and separatist groups in Kashmir is a necessary if not sufficient condition.
At the bilateral level, priority of groupings could be identified, which of course would be different for both countries. For instance, while India might prioritize security as its number one priority, Pakistan might consider territoriality as its number one priority. When such disparity lies across groupings, a sector specific engagement can be flawed, as it currently is and thus inevitably leads to claiming tactics. Thus, a grand engagement can be effective in addressing basic underlying interests. Significantly, it must be deliberated upon at crucial junctures, what really is the end product that both countries desire to achieve.
The Indian foreign secretary has made an official announcement that talks have not collapsed and would resume in the coming months. Though no time line has been specified, perhaps it is urgent that the available time be spent wisely in thinking about a grand negotiating strategy. The primary focus of the Indian government should be on handling internal differences and closely co-ordinating the interests of various parties. Balancing issues across sectors and identifying the consensus principle on India-Pakistan engagement should be the key agenda of the central government. An informed stakeholder engagement at the domestic level, can not only enhance the negotiating posture of India, but in the long run also concretise, refine and endow confidence to the negotiators representing the Indian government.
Three steps are identified for informing India-Pakistan engagement. First, frame the dialogue process in appropriate terms, so that it is inclusive of the interests and stakes of both parties. Second, engage potential stakeholders at the domestic level taking account of their interests and demands. This is an important step and it can significantly be called the preparatory phase. Third, exercise effective leadership at the domestic and bilateral level. Engagement and dialogue are really the key components. While at the domestic level, coordination amongst various actors and collaboration across issues is important, at the bilateral level, adopting a grand negotiating style, as stated before would prove useful. Pakistan has already expressed interest in a composite dialogue on issues pertaining to India-Pakistan engagement. The coming six months are therefore crucial for crafting a grand design for initiating dialogue with Pakistan.
Country: India Pakistan Topics: International politics
Sitting in judgement: for men only?, Cassandra Balchin
Sitting in judgement is something only men can do—or at least that is how legal systems in several Muslim countries have worked until recent legal and social changes. The pace of this change seems to be gathering, such that countries which had previously completely excluded women from an active role in the legal process are now opening their doors, albeit slowly, to women as lawyers and judges.
These changes illustrate some of the challenges women’s rights activists face and the strategies they have used to have their voices heard when religion is presented as the dominant basis of public policy. The question is, though, how far is having women judges and lawyers a sufficient guarantee of access to justice for women, especially in family law cases?
For the first time in Malaysia, two women, Rafidah Abdul Razak, 39, and Surayah Ramlee, 31, have recently been appointed as judges to Syariah Courts. But they are still having to wait for a decision on what cases they will be permitted to hear. Syariah Appeals Court judge Datuk Md Yusup Che Teh told a news conference this was because there were certain cases that they could not preside over, such as divorce and wali hakim cases (where a woman seeks the court’s permission to marry without her father’s permission). Md Yusup said the demarcation of duties for the women judges was not gender discrimination but was based on Islamic rulings that could not be disputed.
Ironically, religious justifications are being used to almost opposite effect in Saudi Arabia. There, in February a new law was reported as planned to allow women lawyers to argue cases in court for the first time—but at this stage limited to family-related cases, including divorce and child custody.
Meanwhile in Egypt in March, the Supreme Constitutional Court overruled objections from conservative members of the judiciary and a large majority of the General Assembly, and instead backed the appointment of women as judges in the State Council (administrative courts) This followed on from reforms in 2004 which ensured that women were included in the court personnel dealing with family law cases. Two years earlier, Abu Dhabi appointed its first female federal judge, while Bahrain now has three female judges. Even in Afghanistan, a country that can hardly be accused of being lax in the area of religious adherence, the Family Court in Kabul is headed by a female judge, Rahima Razai, who is assisted by two senior female judges and one male judge.
The issue of women judges is such a live one currently in the Middle East that it was the focus of the Arab Council for Judicial and Legal Studies (ACJLS) e-forum last year.
These are significant victories for women’s rights. But women judges, including with jurisdiction over Muslim family laws, have been around much longer in several Muslim-majority countries. In 1994, five women were appointed to Pakistan’s High Courts (although the number has since stagnated), which include jurisdiction for superior court appeals in family law cases, and Sudan, despite years of Islamisation, has long allowed women in the judiciary. According to Tunisian lawyer activist Sana Ben Achour speaking at the launch of Musawah in February 2009, today in the Maghreb countries of Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco, there have been an increasing number of female judges and magistrates – 470 female judges out of 1698 in Tunisia (28 per cent); 547 out of 2324 in Algeria (23.5 per cent); and 391 female judges throughout Morocco.
The obstacles that women face in trying to gain significant representation within the legal system are illustrative of the broader obstacles they face in getting women’s voices heard in public policy in Muslim contexts. Here, entrenched male power is quick to switch its justifications for discrimination according to convenience.
One Musawah participant from Afghanistan, who chooses to remain anonymous, noted the conundrum that when NGOs argue that other Muslim countries take a more egalitarian approach in family laws, the conservative judiciary dismisses those as “secular laws”. But in response to progressive examples from religious texts, they say the NGOs are correct about the texts but that this is not the right time for change. Nothing in Pakistan’s laws says women cannot be Federal Shariat Court judges or Supreme Court judges, but it’s just never quite happened despite the country having many highly experienced and respected superior court lawyers who would qualify.
The justifications that have been used to support women’s inclusion in the judiciary and legal profession illustrate the range of approaches being accessed by rights activists in Muslim contexts.
In Egypt, the focus was on constitutional guarantees of equality, international human rights treaty obligations, and support from Islamic scholars. As the Egyptian Centre for Women’s Rights pointed out, Article 40 of the Constitution states "All citizens are equal before the law. They have equal public rights and duties without discrimination between them due to race, ethnic origin, language, religion or creed." Moreover, Egypt has ratified the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and CEDAW, which prohibit non-discrimination on the basis of gender. And to top it all, Dr. Ali Gomaa, the Mufti of Egypt had approved the appointment of women as judges or president.
In Malaysia, where the struggle has been to have women included in the religious courts since they have long adjudicated over ordinary courts, local women’s rights group Sisters in Islam has focused on examining religious texts, as well as taking inspiration from positive developments in other Muslim countries.
The exclusion of women from the judiciary is undoubtedly a sign of discrimination that is not justified in terms of local law, international human rights standards, Islamic principles - and the reality that women are evidently capable of sitting in judgement. But how far is their inclusion in the judiciary a sufficient guarantee of access to justice for women?
In Muslim contexts, including Egypt and Malaysia, where women have been included as part of formal legal processes relating to family laws, the results have been mixed. In Egypt, following the 2004 reform, judges hearing a family case must be assisted by two social and psychological experts, one of whom must be a woman. Research by Dr Mulki Al-Sharmani has found the effectiveness of the experts in contributing to greater equality and justice in family law processes is patchy. Indeed, the study found examples of women experts arguing for restricting women’s rights in divorce. The study’s recommendations are strictly gender neutral, indicating that Dr Al-Sharmani, who is otherwise well-known for her strong stand in favour of women’s rights, does not see the gender of such legal officers as an ultimately determining factor in improving women’s equality in the family.
Sana Ben Achour of Tunisia takes a similar perspective. While she is clearly supportive of the process of expanding women’s representation in the judiciary, she highlights the achievements of what she calls the ‘feminization of the judiciary’. Across the Maghreb, there have been an increasing number of decisions that are emancipatory for women and feature principles of equality and non-discrimination, no matter what the gender of the adjudicator. Judges have been using positive law, constitutional provisions on freedom of conscience, freedom of worship, equality in rights and duties of citizens before the law, and international conventions to expand women’s rights, including in the area of Muslim family law. In Tunisia this was illustrated by a decision ensuring that the non-Muslim wife of a Muslim had full inheritance rights even though under traditional interpretations of Muslim laws she would have been excluded from the inheritance.
As retired Justice Majida Razvi, one of Pakistan’s first female High Court judges noted while participating in the Musawah launch, “Judges always have the discretionary power to ensure that justice is done by issuing judgements that are fair. They can use this space while remaining within the parameters provided by the laws.” In other words, there is plenty of scope for the ‘feminization of the judiciary’, whether through female or male judges.
Key to this process are the application of existing local provisions and international obligations regarding equality, and a recognition by the judiciary of the opportunities for interpreting laws and religious principles in ways that make equality possible. One way women’s organisations can support this process is through transnational networking that can expose how, as in the case of debate about Malaysian and Saudi women’s inclusion in the legal system, religion and respect for tradition are being mobilised simultaneously to exclude them from covering family matters and to limit them to this sphere.
This article is part of the debate Religion Gender Politics - prospects for equality and pluralism. To read other articles in the debate click here
Sideboxes Related stories: Not the Church, Not the State? Gender equality in the crossfire Spirit, hope, money and a dose of patriarchy The Tea Party and the new right-wing Christian feminism Dangerous liaisons Conflict and Custom in the New World Order : a conversation with Gita Sahgal 'Soft law' and hard choices: a conversation with Gita Sahgal The right to have rights: resisting fundamentalist orders The religious lobby and women’s rights Prospects for gender equality and women's human rights Topics: Civil society Democracy and government Equality
Poland and Russia: a fresh start or business as usual?, Rafal Wonicki
On 10 April the Polish presidential airplane crashed near Katyn forest, killing all the 96 top officials on board, including President Lech Kaczynski and his wife. This was the worst political tragedy in Poland’s postwar history, but many people consider it has led to the opening of a new chapter in Polish-Russian relations. However, the situation is not completely clear: Russian sympathy for Polish society’s great loss was very welcome, but there is a need to analyze the future of Polish-Russian relations. Russia belongs to the category of states whose behaviour on the international scene is determined by its ambition to be a superpower. Thus, the main imperative of Russian domestic and foreign policies is the existence of a strong state with a tough government, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the loss of its leadership in the eastern hemisphere.
We need to be aware of the fact that Russia wants to regain its former international position in Central and Eastern Europe too. At risk are Eastern countries’ independent foreign policy and, especially, their energy and security policies. In this respect Russia was very successful, for example, when it foiled US plans to locate elements of their anti-rocket shields in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Contradictory strategic interests are the main obstacle to creating good Polish - Russian relations. Poland’s main objective is to protect its sovereign policy and the only way to achieve this is closer integration and cooperation with EU member states. Russia’s aim is to protect its integrity against Western influences. One of the ways of achieving this is to weaken Polish eastern foreign policy.
The behaviour of the Russian authorities after the catastrophe in Smolensk leads us to conclude that we must give consideration to the geopolitical factors determining Russian domestic and international politics. Gestures of sympathy, such as President Vladimir Putin’s compassionate hug of Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk at the site of the crash are important, but one must not lose sight of the fact that Russian foreign policy is almost always calculated, rather than dictated by emotion. For this reason the Smolensk Tragedy can be treated as a new beginning in relations between Polish and Russian people, but not yet between their governments. Past Russian foreign policy gives us little hope that her political elites will now redefine the principles governing their relations with Poland. Russia treats its western neighbours (Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia) as its natural sphere of influence. For Poland they are partners, states that should be sufficiently strong and democratic to counterbalance Russia.
It is of course true that the Smolensk tragedy will give new life to relations between societies in Poland and Russia, even at the diplomatic level. However, the new trend will not change either Russia’s main Western foreign policy or her geopolitical viewpoint and interests. Even if we admit that after the Georgia war in 2008 relations between the EU and Russia improved significantly (Open Democracy, Europe and the Georgia-Russia Conflict by Katinka Barysch) and that Russia has been making efforts to change its external image and internal policy (Open Democracy Eastern Europe’s Great Game by Katinka Barysch), this does not change the fact that Russia is playing its old imperial game with Poland. The strategy is a game of double politics: a nice gesture to show international opinion the friendly face of Russian authorities, and at the same time action to weaken and subdue Ukraine, Poland and the other Eastern European countries or diminish their international position.
There is no doubt that after the Smolensk tragedy the Russian authorities were active at the highest level. Katyń, the film by Andrzej Wajda, was shown on Russian public television and the original top secret documents concerning the crime committed in Katyn seventy years ago were made public. These actions were motivated by feelings of solidarity and compassion, but there was also an element of political calculation as part of the broader Russian strategy. The aim of the strategy is to show that Polish-Russian relations are good and that Poland’s anti-Russian stance in the EU is unjustified. Polish participation in the EU Eastern Partnership project, her position on possible membership of the EU for Ukraine and support for democratic change in Belarus: all are against Russian interests. After the Smolensk tragedy Russia had a unique opportunity to neutralize, at least partially, Polish eastern policy. Russia’s leadership probably considers that its friendly gestures could lead Poland to change its eastern policy.
Moreover, there is an apparent contrast in the eyes of the international public between the reasonable behaviour of Russian representatives and the emotional behaviour of the main opposition party in the Polish Parliament, the Law and Justice Party, whose leaders and members work up strong anti-Russian feeling. The Polish government, however, reacts reasonably and does not stir up anti-Russian emotion within Polish society. It has also established a friendly relationship with the Russian leaders and appointed Russia’s Interstate Aviation Committee to investigate the causes of the tragedy. The reaction of the Law and Justice Party is definitely extreme, but we should not allow ourselves to be blinded by the impression that Warsaw’s relations with Moscow are now better. There is no sign that Russia has changed its thinking about Poland and its plans concerning Eastern Europe. The Polish government should be aware that the current good relations between Poland and Russia can be used as means of weakening Polish eastern policy and eliminating Polish ideas of promoting EU and NATO expansion eastwards. Good relations with Moscow are crucial, but Poland should not neglect its own strategic interests. It should continue to maintain its support for a democratic Belarus and to influence the EU common energy policy.
Sideboxes 'Read On' Sidebox:Heart of Europe: The Past in Poland's Present [Paperback], by Norman Davies, Oxford University Press, USA (August 23, 2001), 520 pages
White Eagle, Red Star: The Polish-Soviet War 1919-1920 and The Miracle on the Vistula [Paperback], by Norman Davies, Random House, 2003, 336 pages
Katyn: Stalin's Massacre and the Triumph of Truth, by Allen Paul, Northern Illinois University Press; 1 edition (March 15, 2010), 430 pages
The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the West. Edward Lucas. Palgrave Macmillan; Second Edition, Revised and Updated edition (March 17, 2009)
Keith C. Smith (October 2008), Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C., Russia and European Energy Security - Divide and Dominate. http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/081024_smith_russiaeuroenergy_web.pdf
Poland’s tragedy: sorrow, and anger, by Adam Chmielewski and Denis Dutton, openDemocracy, 14.04.2010
Poland's second Katyn: out of the ashes, by Krzysztof Bobinski, openDemocracy, 13.04.2010
Related stories: Russia-Poland: a history too terrible Poland's unique election After the plane crash: Russian attitudes to Katyn Does Russia need a memory law? Russia, Poland and the history wars Country: Poland Russia Topics: International politicsAn asset-turned-liability, Basil James
The latest controversy to hit India’s ruling UPA government is the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, popularly known as the Nuclear Liability Bill. The bill, as the name suggests, deals with liabilities in case of a nuclear disaster in India. The government has come in for stinging criticism from many quarters as opposition accuse it of bowing to American pressure and conceding the sovereignty of the nation to capitalistic powers in the form of U.S. nuclear suppliers.
India and Pakistan are the only nuclear capable countries who do not have such a law in effect. All that is set to change as India ushers in the new Nuclear Liability Bill. So far, so good. Where the government has hit the road block is in certain features of and other proposed amendments to the bill which are perceived to be a result of U.S. pressure on the government.
A nuclear plant is supplied to a country by nuclear suppliers. They design and build the nuclear reactors until it is fully functional. When the reactor is handed over to a country, a nuclear operator is hired to operate the plant. The operator deals with the day-to-day running of the plant. According to the international and the proposed Indian law, in case of a nuclear accident, victims are entitled to compensation from the operator of the plant. This law has been made so that, wherever the fault leading to the accident may lie, the victims get speedy compensation as any confusion regarding the source of the aid is removed. The operator can then seek to get compensation from the supplier in a court of law.
The most controversial aspect of the Nuclear Liability Bill has been the proposed amendment to Article 17 (b). This section deals with the compensation a nuclear operator can get from the nuclear suppliers. Nuclear supplier companies based in the U.S. has conveyed their objection to Article 17 (b) to the UPA government. They fear that this part of the bill would expose them to criminal and tort proceedings. American nuclear companies have historically been reluctant to operate in countries which could take them to court over accidents and disasters. If the article is scrapped or amended in favour of nuclear suppliers, the opposition argues, the suppliers would have almost no incentive to concentrate on the safety of the plants they provide and thus would lead to nuclear disasters. The Article 17(b) is a vital part of the Bill. It is the part which ensures speedy and fair compensation to the victims of a disaster and facilitates a fair remuneration to the operator from the supplier. If the government scraps or drastically amends the bill as has been suggested, the whole procedure of bringing the wrong-doers to justice is thrown out of the window.
The major nuclear accidents across the world - Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Crystal River, Brookhaven etc - have all been caused by flaws in the design of the nuclear plants and drawbacks in the safety measures provided. The design of a nuclear power plant is done exclusively by the nuclear plant supplier. Thus any fault in the design can be squarely laid at the door of the supplier. It is interesting to note that the operator may have no idea about the flaws in the design. The safety measures too are primarily installed by the nuclear supplier. If the Article 17 (b) is amended in favour of the supplier, then they will have almost no incentive to provide effective and fool-proof safety mechanisms and to construct designs that are not prone to accidents of any kind. The government should desist from any attempt to tamper with the article. Rather it should ensure that the article covers every contingency and strengthen it to ensure that no guilty part goes unpunished.
The Article 17 (b) is not the only problem with the Nuclear Liability Bill. The government should take a look at the USA’s equivalent of the Bill and realise how much value the American government places on an American life.
The Clause 6 of the Indian Bill states that the maximum financial liability in case of a nuclear accident is 300 million Special Drawing Rights (SDR), which translates to $458 million or Rs. 2087 crores. The compensation set by the American constitution for an accident in the U.S. is $10.5 billion or Rs. 50000 crores. The Indian government should effectively tell the world that lives are not cheaper in India. If the U.S. government has set such high compensation amounts when accidents affect American citizens, why not so in India. The government should assess this situation and increase the amount set as compensation. What is more, the only operator that would be running the plants in India is the NPCIL, the government run agency. So, when a nuclear disaster happens, the Indian public would effectively be paying the compensation to themselves out of their own pockets!
The maximum amount that can be reclaimed by the operator from the supplier is now set as Rs. 500 crore, which is significantly less than the Rs. 2087 crore NPCIL would have to pay. Obviously, the supplier would rather pay the compensation to the operator rather than investing much more money into developing a faultless design and safety system. A potential tort feasor will optimise their behaviour on the basis of artificially low damages they would have to pay.
India plans to accede to the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC). The CSC is basically a forum or a group of nations that have a common consensus on the issue of Nuclear Liability. The financial details that have been set in the Indian Bill is in accordance to the CSC. However, the CSC is not exactly the premier organisation in these matters. Only a mere thirteen countries have joined the CSC of which only four have ratified it. The Vienna Convention on Civil Nuclear Liability is a much better option. It has only a floor regarding the amount associated with operator recourse in stark contrast with the cap CSC has put in place. It also allows countries to operate independent liability regimes. Moreover, the CSC will only enter in to force if a major nuclear power joins it, a remote possibility. Only if every country in the world were to join the CSC, would the aforementioned amount of 300 million SDR be raised. At the current level, only 50 million SDRs can be raised.
Another drawback to the proposed Bill is that it restricts the time period allowed for claims of compensation to 10 years. Ten years is too short a time frame to assess the physical impacts a nuclear leak has on a population. The time frame should be lengthened to at least 30 years so that the nature of the impact can be fully and effectively assessed. The Bill should also make provisions to include health and environmental experts to assess the impacts, a feature that has been left out of the current bill.
The current international law regarding liability of nuclear suppliers is largely lenient to the suppliers. These laws were drafted in the days when the nuclear power industry was a fledgling one and was in the process of evolving in to a major industry. However, today the nuclear industry flourishes like a green bay tree and so does not deserve any leniency. International institutions should deal with mishaps on the part of suppliers in the same manner as it would deal with disasters in any other industry.
The current Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill is almost half baked and is not exactly fit to be passed by the Indian Legislature. The Bill requires some serious amendments to ensure that the welfare of prospective victims is always the foremost priority of the government. India is one of the largest emerging markets of nuclear energy. India should use this power to negotiate with foreign and Indian suppliers to ensure that the Bill does not let these companies get away with negligence. An ordinary citizen can only hope that the government has learned crucial lessons from the Bhopal disaster of 1984 and the horrendous mismanagement of the investigation and prosecution.
The Fantasyland of ‘The Spirit Level’ and the Limitations of the Health and Well-Being Industry, Gerry Hassan
"I feel that the world is full of closet egalitarians, that at some level people know this makes sense. They were pushed into the closet by Reagan and Thatcher and monetarism and neo-liberal economics, but many people didn’t really stop believing that some of the old left ideas were important. We just lost confidence in them, and I think maybe we thought they just weren’t relevant to the modern world. I feel that the left entirely lost its way."
Richard Wilkinson interview with Iain Ferguson (1)
Since Gutenberg, there are moments when a particular book defines, for good or ill, a historic moment for a society or a culture. It does so not so much because of its particular argument but because it gives voice to the spirit of its time - its fears, hopes and weaknesses. Will Hutton’s ‘The State We’re In’ captured the hopes many people had before New Labour were elected. George Orwell’s ‘1984’ tapped fears of the Cold War and totalitarianism. Hayek’s ‘The Road to Serfdom’ articulated concerns about the onward march of the omnipotent state.
The last decade has seen an emerging industry of books and perspectives question the direction, health and very spirit of Western societies and life. This trend began deep in the economic bubble, with numerous writers questioning economic growth and the numerous paradoxes of prosperity. It has continued post-crash as recession and turbulent times have emerged.
In this environment, ‘The Spirit Level’ by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett has emerged as one of those defining books. It is a serious book by two epidemiologists, but has reached a popular market and achieved a wide public impact (2). Its central thesis is that inequality hurts and that more equal societies work better for everyone.
It has been cited by David Cameron on the election trail, by Sweden’s Social Democrat leader Mona Sahlin, and this week by a fawning ‘Guardian’ editorial which claimed that ‘to emerge from stricken times without breaking Britain, The Spirit Level’s inconvenient truths must be faced’ (3).
‘The Spirit Level’ has aroused significant opposition and even a counter-thesis, ‘The Spirit Level Delusion’ by Christopher Snowdon (4), and a Policy Exchange pamphlet, ‘Beware False Prophets’ by academic Peter Saunders (5). These dismiss ‘The Spirit Level’ as the work of state loving socialists, and are a bit short on subtlety, yet they contain many illuminating explorations of the limits and contradictions within Wilkinson and Pickett’s book.
New Labour advocates and apologists – John McTernan, formerly one of Blair’s senior advisers at No. 10 would be a good example - detest what they see as ‘The Spirit Level’s’ demonising of their Camelot: Anglo-American capitalism with all its dynamism, inclusiveness and the meek of the earth making their way to our shores from far flung lands.
After years of the Thatcherite free market rhetoric – of trickle down, tax cuts and the Laffer Curve being cited as gospel – has ‘The Spirit Level’ turned things round? Not surprisingly things are a little less clear-cut than the thesis put forward by the authors.
What is the Thesis of ‘The Spirit Level’?
Firstly, the central argument of the book for all its huge claims is actually unclear. Are the authors arguing that in more equal societies everyone benefits, or that on average everyone does better? There is a profound world of difference between ‘almost everyone’ and ‘on average everyone’.
It is not possible to make the claim that everyone gains from greater equality. This is just fantasyland politics; the debate between greater equality and inequality involves winners, losers and choices.
Secondly, ‘The Spirit Level’ makes sweeping assumptions about the place and cause of inequality across different societies and gives huge importance to the outliers. For example, the US is the most unequal wealthy society in the world on most indicators, Japan one of the most equal, while the Nordic nations do well on economic and equity comparisons.
Yet, it is almost impossible to compare these countries on equality; they are very different in their cultures, values and histories. Wilkinson and Pickett claim that ‘more equal societies almost always do better’ – a universalist, sweeping statement – which cannot be substantiated by most of their data.
Thirdly, the authors discount the possibility that the poorest in unequal societies have become detached from the mainstream. Isn’t it possible in the UK and US that the poorest 10-20% of the population have become detached from economic prosperity? The US healthcare debate reflected this concern, with much of the focus of the Obama administration on the millions of uninsured Americans.
Fourthly, inequality produces winners whose lives flourish and are not negatively affected by inequality – something the authors try to contradict. These winners might be few and far-between, but they exist and matter from Chelsea FC to Tiger Woods to Tony Hayward and Fred Goodwin. They are all successes aided by our unequal societies.
The last two points illustrate something Wilkinson and Pickett ignore, namely, the unequal distribution of the cost of inequality. Winners gain rewards; the poor are left with the disproportionate consequences of inequality. ‘The Spirit Level’ in its search for a message for the majority of the population tries to deny this.
One of the central weaknesses in ‘The Spirit Level’ is the absence of the importance of politics. How did inequality rise in the UK and US these last thirty years? Wilkinson and Pickett dismiss it in half a page. They let neo-liberalism and free market fundamentalism off the hook on the basis that rising crime, violence and ill-health was never part of their script; but offer no alternative reading.
‘The Spirit Level’ yearns for ‘evidence based policies’, yet, fails to recognise that ‘evidence’ is never neutral, always about ideas and values. The book’s success, itself a tipping point, taps into deep psychological yearnings and liberal guilt about affluence, inequality and the direction of our society in recent years. This is wish-fulfilment and what Isaiah Berlin called the propensity of human beings to want to make the mess of the world into ‘symmetrical fantasies’ (6).
The Political Dimensions of Inequality
What ‘The Spirit Level’ does not recognise is that evidence and facts will not defeat or roll back inequality. What has dramatically changed British and American society these last thirty years has been an ideology and a dogma which has resulted in the state of affairs and mess we are in. Governments, policy makers, opinion formers and media have gone along with and acquiesced in its assumptions. This worldview is oblivious to evidence and facts.
‘The Spirit Level’ has done us a public service, bringing a debate about the merits of equality and inequality to the centre of public debate in the UK and elsewhere. It is now widely accepted that GDP does not automatically equal progress, but the complex causal relationships are never fully explored by Wilkinson and Pickett.
Part of the success of ‘The Spirit Level’ is liberal guilt, part the retreat of the left, part wish-fulfilment and projection. In a fascinating interview with Wilkinson in ‘International Socialism’, the theoretical journal of the SWP, rather than explore the political weaknesses of the book and its assumptions, the interviewer interprets Wilkinson’s arguments and answers in a more political manner. Here is one example of the exchanges:
Q. One of the great things about your book is that it’s opened up that whole debate, and after more than two decades of neo-liberalism it begins to point some ways out. That said, we now, of course, have a new government in the UK. After the initially very positive reception of your book, do you remain hopeful that the ideas will continue to have an impact, or do you feel that the door has now been closed?
A. In a sense, I’m less interested in political parties than in where the majority of the population is. I do think it was impressive that the BNP didn’t make the gains they expected but actually made losses. But more important than that is the fact that to gain the possibility of election David Cameron had to move so far from Thatcherism, and that reflects how the population has moved. I think that since the financial crash inequality has been moving up the agenda very fast. All the three main parties said that inequality was too great and should be reduced. Cameron quoted our book as showing that by every measure the quality of life is damaged by inequality, while Michael Gove, in a radio programme where we were meant to be having an argument, said: “Richard’s right”! And I think the Labour Party will have to go through some pretty fundamental rethinking. (7)
I have quoted this entire part, because it is both revealing and representative. Time and time again the interviewer, Iain Ferguson, mentions neo-liberalism and other political concepts, reads ‘The Spirit Level’ in this way, and gets replies which are filled with liberal vagueness and a lack of political intelligence. Despite this Ferguson does not point this out.
Another example is when Wilkinson is asked, ‘You’ve set up the Equality Trust and you say several times in the book that what we need is a social movement’, to which he answers, ‘I suspect that the easiest part is to get these ideas into the middle class, particularly middle class people working in the public sector, but also the media’ (8). This is he concedes ‘the first stage’, but isn’t much of an answer, and nor does he go on to sketch out any detailed thought-out ideas. Yet, surprisingly, the interviewer doesn’t point any of this out or challenge it!
There is a fascinating psychological effect going on in relation to ‘The Spirit Level’ which is a sort of collective delusion and fantasy. The defence occasionally offered by some believers that Wilkinson and Pickett are epidemiologists, and cant be expected to provide political answers would have held for their earlier work, but doesn’t hold now: given where they have pitched their argument.
The Rise of the Health and Well-Being Lit Genre
‘The Spirit Level’ isn’t on its own, but part of an industry of books including Layard’s ‘Happiness’ (9), Oliver James ‘Affluenza’ (10) and Neal Lawson’s ‘All Consuming’ (11), which reflect the growth of a health and well-being and anti-consumerist trend. There is in this a profound loss of confidence in progress: once felt to be the exclusive property of the left, but now they feel seized by the liberationist forces of the market. And then there is the whiff of nostalgia, a yearning for a simpler time which was more egalitarian and filled with less choice and ‘stuff’.
Lawson’s book opens like a poor imitation of a Martin Amis novel satirising the 1980s with our hero being woken by his Blackberry Pearl mobile as he rises from his Habitat bed, steps onto his John Lewis carpet, and wraps himself in a White Company towel. Oliver James book is even more outrageous, as James whisks around the globe preaching to people about the threat of ‘turbo-capitalism’. Yet when his publisher offers him what he considers an insultingly low advance, James reverts to the ‘selfish capitalist’ he critiques, claiming he needs the money for a host of consumer goods, including a computer, mobile phone an DVD player.
There is a deep, moralising, middle class liberal superiority in all of this: of people who have gained from the labour market and consumed enough preaching at the rest of us. In a penetrating take on Lawson’s book, Mica Nava took exception to his creation of a ‘binary opposition’ between consumption and citizenship, while ignoring the numerous ways in which shopping allows for play, freedom, being visible and belonging, and crucially, the gender aspect of all of this, in which more women find expression through this without necessarily reducing their lives to a ‘Sex and the City’ caricature (12).
Lawson’s answer did concede that some of Nava’s criticisms had a point, and that he had oversimplified for the sake of building a polemic. He still maintained that consumerism was ‘the glue’ holding capitalist society together, which produced ‘hopeless individualism’ (13). This seems wrong on two levels. First, consumerism is not what holds capitalism together; it is a symptom, not the cause. Second, the idea of ‘hopeless individualism’ goes back to the Frankfurt School and its belief in the rise of a personality type which aided political acquiescence. It goes too far, strengthening a culture of pessimism and a sense of powerlessness.
Despite all the claims in ‘The Spirit Level’, in answer to their question, ‘what can be done?’, the authors answer ‘the good society’ and how employee ownership can lead to a ‘better society’. Missing in all of this is anything about politics, ideology, the economy and how we deal with the elites who have gained disproportionately.
Instead, we need to look much at economics, ideas and ideology and the difficult choices which are fundamental to the societies we live in. Goran Therborn’s ‘Why Some People Are More Unemployed Than Others’ (14) looked at the lie peddled in the 1980s that mass unemployment was inevitable and unavoidable. It charted the five OECD economies: Austria, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden and Japan, which navigated through the decade with full employment. They achieved this via a balance each made between economics, government, business, politics and ideology. Therborn’s account is a world removed from ‘The Spirit Level’s systematic collection and analysis of data, but ignoring of these factors.
Alongside a Therborn for our times: a ‘Why Are Some People More Unequal than Others?’, a question ‘The Spirit Level’ makes no attempt to answer, there has to be a mapping out of the multi-dimensional characteristics of injustice, which policy-makers and government need to be challenged to act upon. Fortunately, Daniel Dorling has outlined much of this in his recent book, ‘Injustice’ which isn’t about feeding liberal middle class guilt and anxiety (15). He identifies five facets of contemporary injustice – which he links to an updating of Beveridge’s ‘Five Giants’: ignorance, want, idleness, squalor, disease:
- Elitism is efficient
- Exclusion is necessary
- Prejudice is natural
- Greed is good
- Despair is inevitable
What is refreshing about Dorling’s book is that he summarised the mantra of injustice into a series of pithy narratives and storylines which address the everyday, populist way in which neo-liberalism validates and reproduces itself and is seen by most people as an unideological force and just the ‘natural order of the world’. From this Dorling explores the historical evolution of these areas, addresses in detail the socio-economic pattern of each, and then provides the beginning of possible solutions.
This industry, ‘Happiness’, ‘Affluenza’, ‘The Spirit Level’ and ‘All Consuming’ are a manifestation of the times we are living in: of a deep sense that something has gone wrong, a sense for meaning, structure and the desire for an over-arching interpretation for what has happened to our societies. Instead, serious research and political work need to be undertaken which goes back to fundamentals, asks difficult questions and does not try to create a new faith, religion or groupthink to challenge the existing order and orthodoxies.
Perhaps once upon a time at the peak of the Blair-Brown bubble, people felt the lack of focus in the health and well-being industry was the ultimate consumer luxury goods we could afford, but no more. As we face the prospect in the UK and globally of a second wave of the neo-liberal revolution - the second in a single political generation - we really need a call for back to basics. Back to political economy, to understanding capitalism, economics and markets, and what we have to do to humanise and tame them. Embracing new ideas on all of these, the ecological crisis, psychology and science. Holding power, privilege and the global capitalist class to account.
What we can say with confidence is that we wont find the answer in the ‘health and well-being’ section of Waterstone’s!
Notes
1. Richard G. Wilkinson and Iain Ferguson, ‘Interview: Reviving the Spirit of Equality’, International Socialism, No. 127, http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=658&issue=127
2. Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, The Spirit Level: Why Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, Allen Lane 2009.
3. The Guardian Editorial, ‘The Spirit Level: Spooking the right’, The Guardian, July 26th 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/26/the-spirit-level-society-criticism
4. Christopher Snowdon, The Spirit Level Delusion: Fact-checking the Left’s New Theory of Everything, Little Dice 2010.
5. Peter Saunders, Beware False Prophets: Equality, the Good Society and The Spirit Level, Policy Exchange 2010.
6. Isaiah Berlin, Against the Current: Essay in the History of Ideas, Oxford University Press 1981.
7. Wilkinson and Ferguson, op. cit.
8. ibid.
9. Richard Layard, Happiness: Lessons from a New Science, Allen Lane 2005.
10. Oliver James, Affluenza: How to be Successful and Stay Sane, Vermillon 2007.
11. Neal Lawson, All Consuming: How shopping got us into this mess and how can we find our way out, Penguin 2009.
12. Mica Nava, ‘Shopping’s Not All Bad’, Chartist, No. 241, November/December 2009, http://www.chartist.org.uk/articles/econsoc/nov09nava.htm
13. Mica Nava and Neal Lawson, ‘Is Shopping all Bad?’, OpenDemocracy, January 10th 2010, http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/mica-nava-neal-lawson/is-shopping-all-bad
14. Goran Therborn, Why Some Peoples Are More Unemployed Than Others: The Strange Paradox of Growth and Unemployment, Verso 1986.
15. Daniel Dorling, Injustice: Why Social Inequality Persists, Policy Press 2010.
Topics: Culture EconomicsKosovo, law and politics, Engjellushe Morina
The long-awaited decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 22 July 2010 came as good news for the people of Kosova (Kosovo). In offering its non-binding opinion in a case that had been brought by Serbia following the Kosova parliament’s declaration of independence on 17 February 2008, the ICJ stipulated that Kosova’s declaration did not violate international law or breach United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 (passed at the end of the war of 1999 which had removed Serbian military forces from Kosova). In effect, the world court ruled that Kosovars had done nothing wrong - that the Republic of Kosova was a legal entity.
This positive opinion for Kosova came as a surprise to many observers, for the majority expectation was of a more ambiguous result. But in a longer perspective, the decision was a belated acceptance of a reality that should already have been accepted by the international community two decades ago - when the wars of ex-Yugoslavia were about to begin in earnest (see Goran Fejic, "Midnight in Belgrade, dusk in Brussels", 12 July 2010).
In August 1991, the Arbitration Commission of the Conference on Yugoslavia (named after its chair, the French politician Robert Badinter) was tasked by the European Union with advising it on the legal aspects of Yugoslavia’s prospective break-up. The mistake it made was completely to ignore Kosova, failing to treat it alongside other constituent republics and instead regarding it as nothing but a part of Serbia - even though the Yugoslav constitution of 1974 had established Kosovo’s effective equality with the seven other constituents of the Yugoslav federation (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia and Vojvodina). This meant that it fulfilled all the constitutional prerequisites of a state according to international law.
But if Kosova was a unit of Yugoslavia with a large degree of autonomy (and even took its turn in holding the rotating state presidency), it was also tied to Serbia. This dual constitutional reality meant that its power to chart its own future was in practice limited. In 1989 the autonomy that Kosova had been guaranteed under the 1974 constitution was revoked by the then president of Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic.
The failure of the international community to take Kosova’s full reality into account continued with the Dayton accords of 1995 that ended the Bosnian war, and thus became part of the spiral that led to the war of 1999. In this longer timescale, the ICJ’s “advisory opinion” both lifts a weight that has prevented the region from moving on and opens the way to new opportunities.
The reactions
It is natural that the most joyful reactions to the ICJ verdict came from inside Kosova. The country’s president, Fatmir Sejdiu, said that the opinion removes the dilemmas faced by states that have not yet recognised the Republic of Kosova: the prime minister Hashim Thaci and the foreign minister Skender Hyseni said that the court had acted rightfully; the deputy prime minister Hajredin Kuqi described the ruling as a victory for Kosova and the region alike.
This view was echoed across the political and media spectrum. Blerim Shala, vice-president of the opposition AAK party, commented that the clear and precise ruling created a new political and diplomatic reality. The activist Shkelzen Gashi argued that the road to Kosova’s membership of the United Nations is open, assuming that (as required) the Security Council will unanimously recommend this course to the general assembly, and two-thirds of the assembly will then vote in support.
The leading United States and European politicians also approved the ruling, with the US secretary of state Hillary Clinton urging Kosovo and Serbia to put differences aside and move forward towards their future as part of Europe. The European Union’s top diplomat Catherine Ashton also emphasised that “the focus should now be on the future”, reflecting the foundations on which the EU is built - good neighbourly relations, regional cooperation and dialogue.
In Serbia, the negative overall reaction was reflected in the foreign minister Vuk Jeremic’s statement that Serbia would maintain its position and never recognise Kosovo's independence. Jeremic expressed confidence that the opinion was technical only, and that any political decision taken at the UN general assembly would go Serbia’s way. An emergency session of the Serbian parliament adopted a resolution on 26 July supporting the government’s line by a large majority. But some analysts see the prospect that Serbia’s thinking about Kosova will gradually shift towards an acceptance of the ICJ opinion’s implications (see Florian Bieber, “Kosovo, Serbia and Bosnia: after the ICJ”, 28 July 2010).
The future
But there is a contrast between the view of high politics and the reality on the ground, where much more than the ICJ opinion will be needed before Kosova can move forward. The Republic of Kosova has been recognised by sixty-nine countries to date, and any substantial increase from this number will take time.
Even less straightforward will be how Kosova emerges to full effective independence, when the country still has several international missions with (in some cases) overlapping mandates and competing interests. This puts Kosova’s authorities in a bind, where their need to negotiate and manage a complex set of relationships is in tension with their search for a clear, independent international profile.
The issues of recognition and administrative independence are closely linked. A crucial part of Kosova’s workload is to lobby hard for more global recognition - starting with the five European Union member-states that have withheld recognition (Romania, Spain, Greece, Slovakia and Cyprus). A successful outcome here would spur a contractual relationship with the European commission, and speed the process of UN membership.
In turn this would help Kosovo clarify a muddled governance system, with its five competing authorities:
* UNMIK, the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo
* ICO/EUSR, the International Civilian Office/European Union Special Representative (tasked to oversee implementation of the Martti Ahtisaari plan on Kosovo's future status, and support Kosovo's European integration)
* EULEX, the European Union Rule-of-Law Mission
* the government of Kosova
* Serbian parallel structures operating in some Serb-majority areas, such as Mitrovica in the north
Amid this confusion and the condition of “supervised independence” that it reflects, a European Union perspective for Kosovo remains distant. The country cannot move towards EU integration without implementation of the Ahtisaari plan and recognition from all EU member-states; the Ahtisaari plan cannot be implemented without the cooperation of local Serbs and the Serbian government. Whether Serbia will now contribute to this process or continue to want it all (both EU membership and Kosovo) will be unclear for some time. So despite the International Court of Justice ruling, Kosova’s situation is still stalemated.
If the European Union had taken Kosova more seriously back in 1991, at the outset of the dissolution of Yugoslavia, many Kosovar (and other) lives and huge amounts of money (mainly European taxpayers’) would have been saved. Now, Europe needs to learn the lessons of this history, of its own disunity, of the ICJ opinion - and play a leading role in the vital political decisions that lie ahead.
Sideboxes 'Read On' Sidebox:Iniciativa Kosovare per Stabilitet / Kosovar Stability Initiative (IKS)
International Court of Justice (ICJ)
European Stability Initiative (ESI)
Noel Malcolm, Kosovo: A Short History (NYU Press, 1998)
Tim Judah, Kosovo: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford University Press, 2008)
Julie A Mertus, Kosovo: How Myths and Truths Started a War (University of California Press, 1999)
Dejan Djokic, Yugoslavism: Histories of a Failed Idea, 1918-1992 (C Hurst, 2003)
Tim Judah, The Serbs: History, Myth and the Destruction of Yugoslavia (Yale University Press, 3rd edition, 2010)
Sidebox:Engjellushe Morina is executive director of Iniciativa Kosovare per Stabilitet / Kosovar Stability Initiative (IKS) based in Pristina, Kosovo. She gained a degree from the Institute of Archaeology at University College London (UCL), and a postgraduate degree in diplomatic studies at the University of Oxford. She has worked as an archaeologist in Egypt, Albania, Italy and Britain
Related stories: Kosovo, Serbia and Bosnia: after the ICJ Kosovo's contested future Kosova and Albania: history, people, identity Serbia after Kosovo Abkhazia-Georgia, Kosovo-Serbia: parallel worlds? Serbia chooses a future, just Serbia's tipping-point arrest Kosovo and Serbia, one year after: a quiet compromise? Kosovo: a break in the ice Serbia’s climate change Visegrad, memory and justice Slobodan Milosevic: myth and responsibility Bosnia's war of memory Kosovo declares independence Kosovo’s troubled victory Kosovo: the hour of Europe Kosovo: the Balkans’ last independent state Midnight in Belgrade, dusk in Brussels Country: Kosovo Topics: Conflict Democracy and government International politicsLawfair, Andy Hull
Almost a decade on from 9/11, the chickens of the War on Terror are coming home to roost. Law suits against the government and its agencies – of which Binyam Mohamed’s is the highest profile – allege UK complicity in torture. The cases swirl with satellite litigation. In some parts of Whitehall, they call it ‘lawfare’. But outlaws are a thing of the past, and a fundamental principle of British justice is universal recourse to the law.
The concern among civil servants has been widespread and high-level. Concern at the time and money tied up in defending the cases, at supposedly naïve human rights ‘absolutism’, at judges who ‘just don’t get it’. The assertion is made that these cases themselves threaten the safety of the realm, conflating national security with national embarrassment. All of this has led to a powerful sense that something must be done, whether that be cosy cups of tea with the judiciary, smearing the litigants and pulling their legal aid, or an inquiry to put these issues to bed, which is where we find ourselves now.
The inquiry that has been announced will be judge-led and some mix of public and private. The default should be one of openness, with material being heard in camera only where strictly necessary. The inquiry’s success or otherwise will be determined by the extent to which it: lays bare the truth, as a necessary precondition of reconciliation and learning; recognises and compensates victims, offering them remedy and reparation; holds perpetrators to account, at every level; deters potential offenders; and restores public trust. Where lies have been told, by alleged victims or alleged perpetrators, they can be disproven. And international law can again be worth more than the paper it is written on. Bygones cannot altogether be bygones. Sometimes, we need to look back in order to see ahead.
Some uncomfortable home truths may emerge. Perhaps the fog of war clouded judgments in MI5 back then when it was not so used to operating against neo-jihadis overseas. The system of checks whereby the relevant secretaries of state are made aware of activity with the potential to embarrass the government appears to have broken down. But I would be very surprised if British agents actually pulled out any fingernails. More likely, we sent questions into torture chambers, held our noses and looked away. Forgetting Luther King’s exhortation that ‘our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter’, we may not have spoken out as forcefully as we might have done, or as forcefully as international law demands. Whatever the outcome, when the inquiry is said and done, what will be important is how we move on.
International problems associated with detention and interrogation in asymmetric conflict will not go away. Torture will continue to do violence to the defenceless, using their bodies against their souls. The prohibition on torture will remain a golden rule: universal, unqualified and non-derogable. And the torturer will remain – hostis humani generis – an enemy of mankind.
Yet a fundamental dilemma will also remain: UK intelligence liaison with the likes of the Pakistani ISI has saved British lives. We have good reason to believe that the ISI sometimes torture their detainees. They will always deny that, if asked. Such an intelligence relationship therefore inherently runs the risk of being perceived as – or, worse, actually being – collusive in torture. The only way to avoid that risk would be to terminate the relationship. That could cost British lives.
Whether or not our security and intelligence services end up colluding in torture in the future should be about more than the niceties of how we define a word like complicity. We must have some clear red lines. The exercise of drawing them would be improved by public debate, which we may now get, since the government has at long last published its new guidance for British interrogators. But the fact that this guidance – a Police And Criminal Evidence Act for the Agencies – until recently still hadn’t been published (unlike the terror threat levels) more than a year after the previous prime minister stated to parliament that it would be disclosed illustrates a more fundamental problem, namely one of who is calling the shots.
When the country’s democratically elected leader – the man with the mandate – promises something, it cannot be right that nameless and faceless spooks can make him break that promise. Shady bureaucracy must not be allowed to trump democracy. The same applies, for instance, when it comes to the prospect of admitting intercept as evidence in court, where for too long bureaucratic objections have got in the way of British justice, necessitating ‘special’ legal arrangements to impose controls and restrictions without proper trials and convictions. Politicians need to have the confidence to challenge the ‘deep state’, make decisions, and see to it that they are implemented. There were early signs of this from the Obama administration – ordering an end to forced disappearances, secret detention, extraordinary rendition and torture – and now perhaps from the Coalition here.
In a world where intelligence is used to justify state violence, including war, how it is governed – scrutinised, overseen, held to account – is of both public interest and national importance. Spying may be the second oldest profession, but the governance of intelligence needs to get with the times. In the modern information age, coupled with the decline of deference, ‘leave it to the experts’ is no longer good enough. All organisations benefit from accountability. MI5 and MI6 are no exceptions. But the Intelligence and Security Committee is weak and is too dependent on those it seeks to scrutinise. And a ‘no failure’ culture in the security service stymies progress and lends itself to cover-up.
As ippr’s Commission on National Security in the 21st Century found, legitimacy in security policy is a strategic necessity, not a liberal nicety. It is an influence-multiplier, mobilising allies and solidifying support. Legitimacy is strengthened by robust governance. It is undermined where accountability is absent, as it often appears to be when it comes to the operation of other countries’ intelligence and security agencies: cue the CIA’s drone-bombings in Pakistan by remote control from Langley, Mossad’s recent assassination in Dubai, or the murder of Alexander Litvinenko in London. In the end though, as Northern Ireland – the Guildford Four, internment, Bloody Sunday – taught us: in counter-terrorism, short cuts lead to long delays.
We live in a global security environment of shared destinies and shared responsibilities. In this interconnected and interdependent world we are going to have to collaborate with partners – not just The Five Eyes – on whom our security in part depends, and whom we cannot compel or control. How this globalised intelligence activity is governed is an important question for our times.
As the then prime minister wrote in 2009:
‘Our National Security Strategy – and the hard, often dangerous work our dedicated Armed Forces and others do in putting it into practice – is grounded in core British values of fair play, human rights, openness, individual liberty, accountable Government and the rule of law, because we cannot protect our country and our way of life unless we do so in a way that clearly exemplifies and protects those values’.
He was right. But was he in charge?
Country: UK Topics: Conflict Democracy and government International politicsYou say you want a revolution...., Rowenna Davies and Laurie Penny
Young people today face a future of debt, joblessness and ecological disaster. How should young people respond to the hardships and humiliations handed down by the older generation? Do we need reform, revolution? Ahead of the UK Feminista summer school this weekend, Laurie Penny, of the Penny Red blog and the New Statesman and Rowenna Davies of the Guardian, debate what the strategy should be. All the posts in this thread will be by women. In parallel with it we have started a discussion between men about the need to end discrimination against women. All genders may join in the comments.
Not every generation gets the politics it deserves. When baby boomer journalists and politicians talk about engaging with youth politics, what they generally mean is engaging with a caucus of energetic, compliant under-25s who are willing to give their time for free to causes led by grown ups.
Now more than ever, the young people of Britain need to believe ourselves more than acolytes to the staid, boring liberalism of previous generations. We need to begin to formulate an agenda of our own.
There can be no question that the conditions are right for a youth movement. The young people of Britain are suffering brutal, insulting socio-economic oppression. There are over a million young people of working age not in education, employment or training, which is a polite way of saying "up shit creek without a giro".
Politicians jostle for the most punishing position on welfare reform as millions of us languish on state benefits incomparably less generous than those our parents were able to claim in their summer holidays. Where the baby boomers enjoyed unparalleled social mobility, many of us are finding that the opposite is the case, as we are shut out of the housing market and required to scrabble, sweat and indebt ourselves for a dwindling number of degrees barely worth the paper they're written on, with the grim promise of spending the rest of our lives paying for an economic crisis not of our making in a world that's increasingly on fire.
Just weeks ago, as news came in that the top 10 per cent of earners were getting richer, 21-year-old jobseeker Vicki Harrison took her own life after receiving her 200th rejection slip. Whether a youth movement is appropriate is no longer the question. The question is, why we are not already filling the streets in protest? Where is our anger? Where is our sense of outrage?
There are protest movements, of course. It would be surprising if anyone reading this blog had not been involved, at some point over the past six months, in a demonstration, an online petition or a donation drive. We do not lack energy, or the desire for change, and if there's one thing that's true of my generation it is our willingness to work extremely hard even when the possibility of reward is abstract and abstruse.
What we are missing is a sense of political totality. From environmental activism to the recent protests over the closure of Middlesex University's philosophy department, our protest movements are atomised and fragmented, and too often we focus on fighting for or against individual reforms.
We need to have the courage to see all of our personal battlegrounds - for jobs, housing, education, welfare, digital rights, the environment - as part of a sustained and coherent movement, not just for reform, but for revolution.
For people my age, growing up after the end of the cold war, we have no coherent sense of the possibility of alternatives to neoliberal politics. The philosopher Slavoj Zizek observed that for young people today, it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.
For us, revolution is a retro concept whose proper use is to sell albums, t-shirts and tickets to hipster discos, rather than a serious political argument.
Many of us openly or privately believe that change can only happen gradually, incrementally, that we can only respond to neoliberal reforms as and when they occur. Youth politics in Britain today is tragically atomised and lacks ideological direction. We urgently need to entertain the notion that another politics is possible, a type of politics that organises collectively to demand the systemic change we crave.
Revolutionary politics involve risk. Revolutionary politics do not involve waiting patiently for adults to make the changes. They do not come from interning at a think tank or opening letters for an MP, and I say this as someone who has done both. Revolutionary politics are different from work experience, and they are unlikely to look good on our CVs.
The young British left has already waited too long and too politely for politicians, political parties and business owners from previous generations to give space to our agenda. We have canvassed for them, distributed their leaflets, worked on their websites, updated their twitter feeds, hashtagged their leadership campaigns, done their photocopying and made their tea, pining all the while for political transcendence. No more; I say no more.
A radical youth movement requires direct action, it will require risk taking, and it will require central, independent organisation. It will not require us to join the communist party or wear a silly hat, but it will require us to risk upsetting, in no particular order, our parents, our future employers, the party machine, and quite possibly the police.
The lost generation has wasted too much time waiting to be found. Through no fault of our own, our generation carries a huge burden of social and financial debt, but we have already wasted too much time counting up what we owe. It's time to start asking instead what the baby boomer generation owes us, and how we can take it back.
No more asking nicely. It's time to get organised, and it's time to get angry.
Laurie
Laurie,
You paint a vivid picture of a young, struggling underclass being exploited by adults, and it’s obvious your cry for revolution comes straight from the heart. But do we really want to make age another battleground in our communities? As members of the left, don’t we believe that the real divides in our society aren’t between young and old, but between the rich and poor, the powerful and the vulnerable? Do we really have space for another division?
As a true believer in progressive politics (and at 25, perhaps still a young person), I believe we should be allying ourselves with all those who feel oppression, not just those of a similar demographic. The alternative is to risk segregating ourselves into another youth playpen, disconnected from the left’s mainstream movement. Let’s fight for the bigger picture, not a youthful self-portrait.
It’s a common mistake of adults to assume that because we’re young, we all think and feel the same. Sure, young people tend to feel injustice particularly sharply as a demographic because we all start at the bottom of the jobs pile. But that doesn’t mean that all young people are powerless to the whims of adults. Conservative headquarters are filled with fresh-faced young graduates that are working on policies that screw over people old enough to be their parents and grandparents. How does a “youth movement” deal with that?
Nor do I agree with your vision of revolution, as beautiful as it sounds. Bringing this system to collapse would result in massive economic instability that would undermine the employment chances of all people – young and old. It would fly in the face of the last democratic vote and threaten the social stability of our communities.
So what’s my alternative? Your passionate eloquence leaves my response vulnerable to looking like a tired defence of the status quo. But I share your fierce urgency for change – I just don’t want to see young people tearing down the system. Instead I want to see us enter it, take charge and reshape it. I want to see us filling the youth wings of our political parties and demanding they give us more power, as Young Labour is already doing. One initiative I’m pushing for helps to get young people into local government, not as token youth reps or pen pushers or photocopiers – but as legitimate representatives of their communities.
In short, I want to see a generation that fights for each other rather than on the streets. A youth movement that stands by fellow interns, refuses to work without pay and raises the temperature on educational funding. Yes this will take direct action and organised protest. And yes our targets will often be ‘youth issues’ - but they should always be part of a bigger picture, as the students and lecturers who stood together at Middlesex will tell you.
I can understand your frustration. After thirteen years of a ‘progressive government’, we are still told that we can’t afford to pay for internships, let alone redress substantial inequalities. But we mustn’t underestimate the difference that policy can make, as this Conservative budget is about to prove.
I agree with so much of your clear-spirited diagnosis of the problems. It’s your solutions I’m questioning. Are you completely disillusioned by the system? Is there really no hope for change from within? And if not, why do you keep voting in our elections, and urging others to do the same? Can political parties help turn things around, or might they just as well disband? I’d like to know how you think the system should change to make young people like yourself believe in it again.
Row
Row,
You asked if there isn't hope that young people can change the system from within. The short answer is: none at all, if that's all we're planning on doing. For too many people our age, political activism is just something that looks good on our CVs, something that involves photocopying, distributing leaflets and answering the telephone for adult politicians whose agendas we may not necessarily agree with - often for free.
We worry, and rightly so, about being shunned by the establishment, when really we should be trying to impose our own values upon it. Fortunately, that doesn't necessarily have to involve pepper spray and water cannon. You say that you want to see "a youth movement that stands by fellow interns, refuses to work without pay and raises the temperature on educational funding... direct action and organised protest." in my book, that's the very definition of revolution. Revolution is about challenging hierarchies of labour, property and power; it's not just about slogans and terrible hair, and sometimes revolution can work in the gentlest of ways.
You say that a call for young people to rebel poses a risk of further division in our communities, but I firmly believe that generational politics and the politics of class and capital should not be mutually exclusive. Young people in particular need to understand that our place in the hierarchy of labour and property is lowly, insecure and unjust, and only by developing a sense of solidarity and real rage will we begin to approach that understanding appropriately.
My greatest fear for our generation is that we will grow up to inherit a poorer, harsher, more difficult world than our parents without once having mustered the courage to question what brought us to this point.
Even before the financial crash, most of us who grew up through New Labour’s exacting reforms to secondary and higher education have been conditioned from an early age to see ourselves as little more than commodity inputs. Now, with wages low, job security non-existent and seventy of us competing for every vacancy, there is a danger that we will feel too frightened of being left behind by the market to demand our rights to work, housing, a decent standard of living and a sense of security that means more than a neoliberal soundbite. We have been trained to compete, and to see one another as competitors, and this too is a reason to cherish revolutionary spirit.
What do I mean by revolution? Not blood in the streets, although direct action must be a part of any movement. Not just anger: raging at the baby boomers won’t solve any of our problems by itself. Deep ideological questions of class, equality and the nature of late capitalism will continue to matter to people our age long after we have buried our parents and taken on the work of running the country. If we are to stand a chance of doing so with any semblance of maturity and responsibility, we need to remember what it's like to believe in change, change that's not a slogan on a poster or a platitude from a pundit but a concrete plan to improve our lives collectively.
That’s why I’m quite serious in calling for revolutionary sentiment. We need to understand how badly we have been let down by the system, because one day we are going to be in charge of that system. People don't truly treasure things until they've fought for them, and it's only by fighting for political emancipation, equality and social justice that we'll be able to pass those things on to generations who will come after us. If we truly mean to create a decent society for ourselves to inherit, we need to risk upsetting people. We need to risk being badly behaved, and making ourselves less, rather than more employable. To do politics properly, we need to risk getting in trouble.
Laurie
Topics: Civil society Democracy and government
Summer days at the dacha, Elena Strelnikova
“Ma-ma, mam, ma-ma…” My youngest daughter, furious at being put to bed for a rest, is practising sounds under the blanket. She can hear the older girls outside, whispering to each other in a carefree way, and is probably cursing grown-ups to herself for regularly and obstinately insisting, nay forcing, little ones to have a rest. They should try it themselves…. Oh, dearest child, if you only knew how wonderful that would be. At the dacha, in the fresh air, where the birds twitter happily and the wine is cool.
The average Russian’s love affair with the dacha goes through several stages during the course of his life. At the beginning you’re not asked if you want to go – you’re just tagged on to the group. At that stage you don’t have anything against it. Then you do, but the adults pay no attention to your despairing protests and drag you along. They’re convinced that without that gulp of fresh air you won’t survive. Or could it be that without your help they won’t manage to dig over those interminable flower and vegetable beds? Then, for some reason, you yourself start planning to go to the dacha at the weekend. The last stage is when in early spring you take all your worldly goods, up sticks and off to your country villa with its 500 sq.m. This is proof to the whole world that you have no need of the Canaries and there can be no better possible holiday that the endless ploughing-sowing-weeding of cucumbers-tomatoes-courgettes and peppers.
These assertions are based on scientific evidence. The Russian Centre for the Study of Public Opinion has published data proving that in 2010 20% of Russians plan to spend their holidays at the dacha. 55% are going to spend them at home. Only 1 in 20 people intend to go abroad, and 1 in 10 plans to go to the Black Sea. People are prepared to spend on average 16,000 roubles on their holiday. Not very realistic for the provinces, I can tell you.
The other day my colleague had a call from her sister in Petersburg. They haven’t met for a long time and are missing each other. The sister suggested they go on holiday together in Europe, as the Petersburg airline has a sale on so a return ticket only costs 200-300 USD. My colleague refused. Not because she doesn’t want to see her sister or has already criss-crossed Europe and seen everything. No. It’s just that for the provinces this kind of money is unrealistic. Regional carriers have no competition, so for us a one-way ticket to Petersburg costs minimum 200 USD.
The beach in Russia’s top Black Sea resort of Sochi. Only 1 in 20 Russian citizens intend to go abroad, and 1 in 10 plans to go to the Black Sea.
The same colleague is now trying to arrange her summer break by the sea. On the internet she found an acceptable hotel in Anapa for 1,500 roubles (approx. 50 USD) a day, all mod cons, 100 m. from the sea. But the problem is getting there. Two days in a stuffy train compartment with a 2-year old would be hard work. The 90-minute flight from Orenburg to Anapa costs 7000 roubles (230 USD) with a discount for the child. So 25,000 roubles (821 USD) for the two of them – and that’s only the travel.
The travel agency is offering a holiday costing from 12,000 roubles (394 USD) (including the flight) on the same Black Sea, but in Turkey. People in the know maintain that this year Turkey will beat all the records for the number of tourists from Russia. We have no fear of terrorism, road accidents, pouring rain (this kind of trifle we don’t even notice). Crimea could compete by offering Black Sea holidays, but the service there is still Soviet – though the beauty of the landscape and Crimean wines might help one to overlook such nuances. But here too the outlay is pretty scary for an ordinary provincial would-be tourist.
However, we Orenburgers are lucky. We can be restored to health without even leaving the region. 75 km from Orenburg we have our own spa, Sol-Iletsk [sol is Russian for salt ed]. Well, calling it a spa is perhaps a bit over the top: it’s more like a hamlet or a small, extremely dusty and dirty little town. It’s on the border with Kazakhstan and its main selling point are the salt and mud lakes, rather like the Dead Sea in Israel. The best known is Razval Lake, 6.8 ha with a maximum depth of up to 22m and a steep cliff on one side, more than half made up of rock salt. The water in the lake is a powerful saline solution: the salt content is more than 200g per litre of water. Razval doesn’t freeze over, even in the hardest frosts, and from a depth of 2-3 metres down to the bottom the water temperature is below 0°. The region of the Iletsk saline dome has another 6 lakes (Dunino, Tuzuluchnoe, Novoe etc) which have reserves of therapeutic mud. In the summer months these lakes have countless hordes of a small reddish brine shrimps Artemia Salina.
Sol-Iletsk, a favourite spot for Orenburgers. The water in the lake is a powerful saline solution: the salt content is more than 200g per litre of water.
The salt water and mud are very effective treatment for people with skin diseases and joint pain. But the service holidaymakers get in Sol-Iletsk leaves a lot to be desired. People are specially outraged by the fact that for the last 7 years they have had to pay up to 200 roubles (approx. 6.5 USD) per person for access to the lake, with only minimal services on offer. The toilets are terrible, there are queues for the showers, the beach is not very clean and there's a battle every morning for the deckchairs. The local authorities have leased out the whole territory for 30 years to private companies, who are pumping money out of people while they can. The population of Sol-Iletsk is slightly more than 20,000, but during the season there are up to 2.5 times that number of visitors. So you can do the sums.
This year the local procurator's office has suddenly spoken up, after a 7-year silence. First the law enforcers went to court over illegal charges for people wishing to bathe in these unique lakes. They «unexpectedly» remembered that under Russian law all lakes are classed as natural features under regional management, so they have to be accessible to everyone. The court verdict was that entry should be free. The companies complained. The matter has not been solved, but the spa season has already begun. For the moment the price is half what it was last year.
The procurator's office has suddenly woken up and handed down another decision: the spa is life-threatening for tourists. The problem is an enormous rock slip which has appeared extremely near Razval Lake. This was supposed to have been filled in at the beginning of the spring, but after the procurator's intervention it emerged that, in spite of instructions from the spa's director, the 10m-crater is still there. «Sinkholes are quite common», we are assured by those for whom the bathers (which is the name the locals give to the holidaymakers) represent purses for them to extract as much money as possible from during the season ……and everything else can go to hell.
The region has so far had its fair share of problems this season, because the current heatwave has been going on for more than month. Today the temperature is 36° and forecasters are saying that the day after tomorrow it'll be 42°. The sowing season is over, but in some parts of the region lack of rain meant they had to stop sowing spring crops. For our agricultural region, where 40% of the population live by farming, this situation is near fatal. One longs to shelter in the shade by an expanse of water, but each year there are fewer and fewer such places.
My husband is a passionate fisherman. He's not a poacher. At spawning time he fishes with only a hook. Yesterday he came back from his latest outing very depressed. There are gobies and minnows in the Ural River now, which means the water is cleaner. But it's a shame that only our cat would be satisfied with the size of the fish. Kuzya was purring happily and smiling, but might it not be that even this happy little animal will quite soon have nothing to catch?
The Ural River is 2428 km long (1164 km run through our Orenburg Region), which makes it the third longest European river after the Volga and the Danube. The volume of water in the Ural also puts it among the thirty biggest European rivers – but it's getting shallower. Quite recently this massive artery was almost without fish. At the end of the 1970s the Ural produced 33% of the world's sturgeon, and 40% of its black caviar. Over the last twenty years the fish population has shrunk by more than 30 times. Or so the biologists tell us. I'm nearly 40 and have never heard any tales about sturgeon: fishermen are delighted to talk about their catches, but I've only heard about a 2kg Caspian asp (Aspius rapax) and a catfish that was 2m long.
We are all to blame for this. We're interested in grabbing as much as we can and only the best bits. 15-20 years ago there were about 2000 small rivers and lakes along the length of the Ural River. During the spring floods the river used to overflow its banks and the lakes would fill up. Now they've dried up completely and even the Ural doesn't have much water. This is why there are fewer varieties of animals living here. Last weekend, though, we were 40 km from Orenburg and we saw eagles, herons, marmots, beavers, ground squirrels and apparently roedeer have been seen there too. But the little lake so beloved by our family, Zmeinoe [Snake Lake], is obviously just going to turn into a bog. It's only 50m from the Ural River, but no water has flowed into it for several years.
The average Russian’s love affair with the dacha goes through several stages during the course of his life.
Tomorrow we are told it will be 42°. These kinds of temperatures scare me. Last week almost all the woodland around Orenburg went up in flames because of the heat and a strong wind. There was a strong smell of burning in the city. The next day one of my friends went past the site and said it looked as though it had been bombed. It started just because someone was driving past and threw a cigarette butt out of the window. Or someone thought it might be interesting to see if the poplar seed tufts would burn. Or someone decided to tidy up all the rubbish in the forest area in one go. So….not even grass grows there any more now.
But it's growing at my dacha – unfortunately! I pull it up all the time, but it's like Sivka-Burka [a Russian fairytale horse which springs up out of the earth ed], but it goes on coming up. You know what? I'll plant lots of it in front of the house, my husband will fill the pool under the apple tree with water and the girls and I will pick strawberries. It's not for nothing that our fellow citizens like holidays at the dacha. It's quiet and peaceful. There might even be nightingales singing……
Sideboxes 'Read On' Sidebox:Steven Lovell: „Summerfolk: A History of the Dacha, 1710-2000”, Cornell University Press; illustrated edition edition (April 2003), 260 pages
Raymond J. Stryuk and Karen Angelici (1996) The Russian Dacha phenomenon. Housing Studies 11:2, 233 – 250
Related stories: The Microeconomics of the Dacha Remembering Chekhov in Yalta Country: Russia
Recent comments
2 weeks 19 hours ago
4 weeks 1 day ago
8 weeks 6 days ago
8 weeks 6 days ago
9 weeks 15 hours ago
9 weeks 15 hours ago
9 weeks 17 hours ago
9 weeks 17 hours ago
9 weeks 18 hours ago
9 weeks 18 hours ago