About Kyoto: Filtering the News

The political economy and global warming

A little adventure into the controversy around the Kyoto Protocol might explain how the media explains the status of those in power, and supports the economy.

Bush recently claimed that ratification of the protocol would be "economically irresponsible". He said that it would cost the US economy $400 Billion and 4.9 million jobs. Thus ratification would be a threat to national security. He stressed what the treaty would do to or for employment, profits,investment, balance of trade, innovations and other economic/financial indicators. He does not see that at current rates, species worldwide are in peril, natural resources are depleting at the speed of life, and current rates of extraction are not sustainable in any way.

The US and Canada need to be global leaders. They must take the initiative towards innovation and change. If it isn't seen as a priority, to preserve biodiversity, and the sustainable use of our natural resources, currently emerging economies won't put their focus there either. Without this focus, development in places like Asia won't necessarily be environmentally considerate when acting in economic interest. The rationale won't come through. To me, there is no question that global warming exists, although there have been several of my friends who still believe we are just getting over an ice age and there is nothing to worry about.

The first part might be true in part, but the fact is that CO2 levels have exponentially grown in the past decade or so. So when I found this comment from the Globe and Mail (with source reference at the end
of this post), I was horrified:

"Climate change drives major changes in CO2, not the reverse; carbon
dioxide is only a minor contributor in the many factors that influence
global climate(...) When it comes to climate change, humans aren't the
culprits" (208).

Now, for one of the most important newspapers in Canada, I thought this was quite harsh, not to mention inappropriate.

Recently getting over fascinating facts and images from Mr. Al Gore, Ifail to see global warming as only a consequence of mass hysteria in the developing world. It is a global issue, but it takes determination and courage to hit it head on, no matter what its going to do to our economy in the short run. Global leaders must understand that it is more than short term economic cycles, WE MUST LOOK TO THE LONG TERM! I think that, once again, the powers that be are using the media to promote what they want as fact, otherwise there will be consequences in the current economic system. Although modern viewers are quick to accept their own doom, this problem won't be a simply quick fix Armageddon - that great movie with Bruce Willis. The current system is encouraging collective suicide and a harsh refusal to protect what makes this earth so fantastic- its diversity.

The problem with patriotism, and the reason some political philosophers do not see it as a virtue, is because it tends to lead you blindly around issues that are very important. You end up engaging with the majority, defending your countries actions as you do it.

I remember...

This morning, I sit, with a cigarette and a cup of coffee in my home town, Chelsea, Québec. Many mornings in Montréal, when I must rush to school on the bus, bombarded by advertisements and surrounded by sick people, I get confused as to why I am there in the first place. I often tend to forget what the countryside has to offer. When I was kid I had a pessimistic view on being in the country. It was "boring". There was nothing to do.

Now, the respite that it gives me is indescribable. There are no fences here. The neighbors do talk to each other. The community is fighting expansion and development. There is still some humanity. So, yesterday I saw a bear destroying the plants in the back yard, to my father's complete desperation. AND, I saw the mother chickadee surrounded by five youngsters taking lunges at the several bird feeders in our yard. It was beautiful. Then it started raining and that scent of fall came through to its fullest majesty. My brother always said that he could smell the rain coming.

This, as well as a super fluidity of reasons, is why I disagree with current trends in the world at the current time. I want things to change, but I don't know how.

Psychology/ Development discussion group

I recently joined a discussion group that talked about psychology and development. I joined it not because I had any concept of the psychology department involved, but because I was intrinsically curious as to what they would be discussing. The topics involve trying to take a step back from culturally dominating conversations and trying to involve oneself on the ground in a manner that works with the culture at hand. We discuss how difficult it is to involve ourselves with topics in the third world where we don’t really have the rubric to involve ourselves in the first place. For example, how do you psychologically evaluate, with our standards, children that have been in refugee camps their entire lives? How do you get the children of war, young soldiers that have been drugged or mentally manipulated, to understand that they can change if they have the chance? How do you help people that have suffered immense hardships to come to terms with themselves and move on with their lives? We just don’t have the resources here, in our comfortable lives, to assert ourselves in that new situation. I guess you can adapt to the environment, learn from your surroundings, and work a new psychology curriculum. But its not so easy to do.

A fellow student of mine also highlighted how the international program at McGill tends to reinforce the idea of “the first world” and “the third world” and how they are separate. Notice that a class in European history does not count towards the IDS program because you aren’t talking about the developing world. How do you expect students to grasp what is wrong with the current system if you perpetuate it in the curriculum and program requirements? Things have to change. Its not “us” against “them”. We are all working in this together… man it makes me angry sometimes.

On human freedom, democracy and a rant about some of the middle east

so...

Although we do see the international development as somewhat controlled by the “Empire’, we can't forget that we must remember that the great leader and policy legislator, is indeed fallible. Since rulers are ignorant, self-interested and fallible as all men are, then this implies that their power should be limited (5) and not all deciding. Hence, this also implies that since no one really knows how to solve all of social life problems, and the individual is only directly involved with his own life, society cannot have a prescribed order. Society is spontaneous, ever changing in complexity and direction- there is no one structure that does not have its own downfalls. With this in mind, there is limitation of power in the new international order. When media and the transfer of information is in the hands of one source that believes in its justification and infallibility, the eventual power convergence is the only social aspect that will underline its own unreliability.

In a city or nation state, there is a regular subordination that is established. "Therefore, in the city certainty of the law created the habitat for development”(95). The city this became the "sanctuary" of capital, and through this international development became a consequence. Furthermore, somewhat of a catastrophe, economically speaking. Although the first world stresses the amelioration of third world plight, the benefits are somewhat subjective. An important point that was recently brought up to me is that more than 80% of the world currently lives in slums. My imagination would bring in the fact that although we believe that emerging economies are benefiting from our transactions with them, these benefits are within themselves limited to what we believe should be their objective. There are unintentional consequences to intentional human action.

The industrial revolution linked with this normative habitat for amarket society brings about, namely the growth of science and technology (97). Is it the merit of the first world to have the capacity to exploit the third world. Is it their right? Is it the perpetuation of unjust principles? The essence of democracy is to obey no master, but the truth law. But, have we not created an environment where these laws are skewed to our own advantage. This is perpetuated both domestically and in the internationally arena.

Are international laws dominated by a one sided view of right and wrong? If we were to apply the conceptions of the law that are present within the United States, and extend these to other parts of the world, would they be relevant? Would there be any international system in place to require our attention to them?

Are we all originally ignorant? Do we actually believe that the manner in which we are promoting our just democratic principles is in a manner of fair play that is not entirely self-interest? We cannot explore the unknown and correct our errors unless we have free institutions (148).

The cause of democracy becomes desperate if we begin with the idea that we can know absolute truth and critical uphold absolute values. My cause here is to explain that there must be free social cooperation. The conditions of our lives must be bettered with change. We must not remain complacent under a “democratic” society, which does not practice what it preaches worldwide. When we speak of development and aid, the general "we" of the Western world tend to think of it in a utopian sense, rather than a practical one. An equal comparison is that between women and men. The equality of women is a complex issue that may not be solved today. However, we can see that it has taken a long time to work through all stages of feminism to the point where we are today. But, does the world today really mirror equality? Can we really say that the patriarchal system has been deconstructed in the media, for example? We just have to open up our television to MTV to understand that music videos are still banking on the same idealized, objectified, and victimized view of women.

We do not imagine " the worst" man can do. When we renounce the institutions of liberty and entrust ourselves to the presumed omniscience of someone, this includes all possible kinds of degradation, infamy and bestiality"(150).

The growth of information and technology is based in a society that is certain that its conquests are justified. However, this is not the case; imperialism continues.

What was highlighted in class, was that our viewpoint is not necessarily the optimal one, and we have to come to terms with this. When we speak of “imposing” democracy, it must be the case that the culture and society itself agrees with the steps taken, and where the person put in charge is ready to accept its responsibilities in and of themselves, rather than being puppets to a “greater regime”. Iraq is a good and contemporary case to look at, and it will be interesting to see how things will unfold there after the media turned the whole affair into a catastrophe. It is understood now that ground troops might not be safe in an environment where the population is angry and subdued. Yes, Sadam was a pretty bad tyrant, but that doesn’t mean that the US interpretation of the events is the best one, or even the most validated. The controversies about all wars in Iraq are usually vilified because the primary objective seems to be to access the OIL, and not to promote a free democracy. Not that they could handle that in the first place. It is amazing how much the news have created a mass hysteria around Muslims worldwide since 9/11. First they were looking for terrorists in Afghanistan (and they still are), and then for WMDs (funny- that we all know what that means), which they didn’t even find. And through the news all of this is justified. BUT, now no one is safe in Iraq. And it looks as though Mr. Bush is going to be putting even more troops in: only time will tell. I think, personally, that his efforts, however well documented by our wonderful news varieties, are in vain. He doesn’t want to feel stupid- let alone guilty- for the damage that is already done. Does he think defying Democrats is just a game to see who has more leverage? Imposing fully fledged western democratic standards will be set aside. A tripartite partition within a loose federal electorate system will not lead to peaceful power sharing between the Shi’a, the Sunni and other various ethnic parties within the country. It will however lead to a large scale humanitarian crisis as the country grasps its last hopes and resources at some kind of sensible conclusion to this whole fiasco. But things aren't going to be so easy . Instead of putting money into sending more trooops to "secure Iraq", why wouldn't we send more money for them to rebuild their infrastructure in a few years? wouldn't that make more sense? Bush is in a state of denial.

Except perhaps in Iran, but even there, things are uncertain. All we know is that we don’t want a Middle Eastern arms race, because that would be... well, stupid and crazy. I mean I guess after the Cold War was so hyped up and confusing, the American population has reason to be nervous (More on that later in The Fog of War blog on Robert MacNamara). My issue with the whole deal is that the US dictator – one voted in a strange, seemingly illegitimate election, though that might be a bias point- is only replacing another one.

Source: Infantino, Lorenzo. “Ignorance and Liberty” London: Routledge Studies in Social and Political Thought, 2003

Movie: "Iraq in Fragments". Dir. James Longley. Arab Film Dist. 2006--- I thought this documentary to important and withstanding on its own accord. It shows the story from all three major groups in Iraq; the Sunnis, the Shi'a and the Kurds. It's cinematography is phenomenal. The director also shoots freely, with seemingly little politial bias. This allows us to enter, at several different instances, environments that would have usually been censored to the American public.
site: www.iraqinframents.com/

BOOKS READ: Hosseini, Khaled. "The Kite Runner". New York: Riverhead Books, 2003
"Afghans like to say: Life goes on, unmindful of beginning, end... crisis or catharsis, moving forward like a slow, dusty caravan of koshis"

Chomsk- down

So, the truth about Chomsky has been a large part of my family discussion at supper time when I go home for the weekend during the school year. My father doesn't believe his efforts. But then again my father has beef with a lot of my beliefs. It was brought to my attention that he and I are different quite obtusely in my Environmental Management class last year when the professor, said that the strangest circumstance would be if your father worked on an oil rig and was sponsoring your education in environment at McGill. Well, that hit pretty close to home. My father, Giles- a somewhat frigid but at times delightful English man- is a senior petroleum geologist for Northern and Indian affairs. He works for the government and is presently pushing a pretty good case for the MacKenzie Delta pipeline project. This debate has been going on for a long time- he's worked for the past decade at least on the project and only now are the debates going on. I see them in the newspaper all the time. Anyways, he's pretty into it. On the other side, there are a bunch of environmental lobbyists that are pushing to have the project closed because of severe environmental consequences. Not to mention, the aboriginals up there want their fair cut of the benefits which, as we have seen throughout the world and in our class, if really hard to compliment with an adequate budget. Needless to say that we kind of clash heads on the subject. However, every time we bring it up he reminds me that he is paying for my tuition. My point is that we shall never really agree, and sometimes its better to keep quiet.

So, the discussion on Chomsky is not trite. He believes that language and the manner in which the media is constructed creates a status quo of misinformation. Here we shall discuss his efforts beyond linguistics, though I will not take these as benign. His work in that area does really apply to us here. What is more important is his critical approach to the media and to politics in general. My father says he's radical and most people would agree with him. However, his approach mirrors the manner in which I have come to understand the current international order and the way in which the hierarchical status quo maintains this system. Through various devices, the news and the general media have created an environment where "truth" becomes a rather subjective mechanism to instill certain values and thought processes into the general population who are lacking their own devices to question and/or fight back against the assumed information. This creates an environment of misinformation.

Case in point: Don't take the truth for granted.
Second Case in point: Don’t confuse fact and fiction.

This may seem an adequate and simplistic conclusion for a group of students that are constantly rummaging through ideas and theories, and questioning the validity or strength of various biases. Still, sometimes our conclusions are not the obvious ones. The creation of misinformation or the control of the way ideas are instigated helps companies and multinational corporations gain capital by supporting this idea of "democracy" and freedom" in a capitalist system that exploits the developing world. At this point, there is a needed influx of information from alternative sources that allows us to maintain a subjective point of view rather than leading us with biased, or withheld information. It is important to realize that the critical eye has had enough with the glut of lies that has been labeled as truth by the US government.

An example: all the wars that we have entered

Chomsky is considered a political dissident in the United States for his stance on foreign policy strategies abroad and the manner in which there have been several incidents of double standard within the country itself.
(A good example to bring up here might be the recent resignation of Donald Rumsfeld and the subsequent debate over his involvement in what some might deem "acts of war", i.e. there is a law suit against him that claims that he has violated both the U.S. Constitution and international laws against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. This example shows the double standard. The consequence of the current system is that Rumsfeld will probably not be tried for his actions, and thus will not be held responsible. If the United States cannot show leadership in the field where it puts so much money and effort, how can its actions be legitimized in the international arena? )

The most important point I think for Chomsky is that the US says it promotes freedom and democracy in all of its efforts, but in fact, US foreign policy is based around strategy and the way in which it wants its interests answered. This has given them incentive to further their efforts in globalization and further exploitation and marginalization of the third world. Rather than help in overcoming economic tensions, they perpetuate them.

Chomsky argues that the current US system has three arms: the media, the government and the economy, and that all three support each other. Through propaganda, there becomes this ideal of conformity where it becomes very hard to question the legitimacy of the government. Chomsky uses the word “flak” to characterize the concerted and intentional efforts to manage public information. This creates a propaganda model, a theory that alleges systematic biases in the mass media and seek to explain them in terms of structural economic causes. Chomsky is a strong advocate for free speech and supports alternative media sources. Granted that alternative media also have their own biases, the information they dispel does not need to be associated to a profit margin, product sales, etc. We must look at them critically, but the plethora of different sources now allows us to make our own decisions and look into the matter in the way that we want to achieve a new view of the subject, rather than it being imposed on us.

The following link has been my homepage for the last 7 years. It was suggested to me by a dear teacher of mine named Bertram Young who taught sociology and development at John Abbott College in the West Island. Unfortunately, during my last year at that school, Bert was in a horrific car accident which stole his life. The ironic thing was that he was an avide supporter of taking his bicycle everywhere he went, rather than taking a vehicle. This was countered when his wife was admitted to the hospital for some breathing difficulties. Upon one of his drives to the hospital, he was hit by a drunk driver that was coming back from a college night out. Bert's determination and positive drive for change will always support the source of my inquisitive nature. His pursuit in deconstructing the pros and cons of development agencies pushed me to do what I am doing today.

Feature site:
http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm

The New York Times article

My buddy Adam sent this over to me and I do believe it points out many important aspects about the manner in which we are treating our development abroad. The article highlights various ethical problems with the manner we tend to impose our cultural values, while neglecting to think that our way is not the ideal for cultures that are different than our own. Cultural hegemony is not the way to go. Furthermore, Kristof makes various references to the idea of stigma and the way social hierarchy works in the third world. The problem with AID work is that it isn't making the right changes, those that are culturally sensitive. Rather, we impose what we see as best when the receivers don't have the energy or the courage to argue against this. One of the better examples that he makes is the one made about nursing mothers with AIDS that are offered Nevirapine to block the transmission of the virus to the child. The author mentions that a couple hundred feet down the road, all of the medicines will be discarded in the ditch, due to the stigma that accompanies taking the drug in the first place. Everyone would of course assume that you have HIV/ AIDS and you don't want that stigma- you already have to live with the disease.

So the appropriate measures are taken in certain circumstances, but in many cases, the international agenda has taken development entirely the wrong way. This is perpetuated in the media. Another example that was brought to my attention in a recent lecture is that there been so much attention given to treatment of HIV/AIDS, but the evangelist movement of the Bush administration abroad has really inhibited the efforts to prevent transmission in the first place. In countries such as Botswana, there was major progress being made where with the ABC program which promoted
1. abstinence
2. faithfulness
3. condom use

This was all fine until the UNAIDS definition was compromised by that of PEPFAR which promotes:
1. Abstinence for youth, including the delay of sexual debut and abstinence until marriage
2. Being tested for HIV and being faithful in marriage and monogamous relationships
3. Correct and consistent use of condoms for those who practice high-risk behaviors.
from www.avert.org/abc-hiv.htm

There are many obstacles in uniting the differences between both of these definitions. The one problem is that you can't stop youth from having sex. Also, there are some areas where the Western definition of faithfulness in marriage is not the same one that is relevant on the ground. Furthermore, we are forgetting that sex trade is often a last resort to getting economic benefits. I went to a conference once where one panelist talked about SEX 4 FISH, a witty spin-off of the OIL 4 FOOD program, but one that made the point all the same. He was describing an the situation around Lake Victoria, one of the biggest fresh water lakes in the world. The fishermen leave their wives and their villages to go fishing. The women stay in coastal towns and pawn off the fish that they receive from the fish. With current educational possibilities at times limited because of economic difficiencies, there are many younger people that pick up the trade. This causes much competition for selling the fish in the towns for the best price. In short, this causes the women to trade sexual favors for fish to sell. In an area where there is much movement and migration, this causes HIV/ AIDS infection to spread a lot more rampant. This is only one story that shows how our idea of truth as a condensed process does not lead to accurate changes in policy. In fact, the problem are so intrinsically complicated that the idea of truth as a semi-monolithic concept is just not enough.

And this is where alternative sources of information come in. We MUST be weary of information given. Otherwise, there will be no change.

Chomsky

I feel like we are all monkeys just waiting for the banana. In terms of the media, we are all just waiting around for something "crucial" and interesting to pop-up, so that we can either align or not with the bias created therein.

Not to get all political and stuff, but I always was kind of an anarchist at heart. Thus, I attempted enrolling in the Chomsky class at McGill- where I quickly contemplated my decision, and which I subsequently dropped. Sorry, more on Chomsky next time, I must go save a friend from trouble.

the first step

The first time I started strongly questionning our development stance within the third world came sometime during a trip to South East Asia a couple years ago. We were taking a boat trip up the Mekong River from Northern Thailand to the middle of Laos. I guess we were landing in Luang Prabang. We had just escaped a week of craziness during the Water Festival, at which point my feet has been the victim to a severe gangrine-type bacterial disease. Needless to say that the two day boat "cruise" on the slow boat was somewhat well needed. Anyhow, during the trip upstream, we saw countless of forrest fires, to which the white college kids on the boat had nothing but disappoving conclusions about. What I had learned, however, was that indigenous cultures throughout the region had their own manner in dealing with soil maintenance, and although the fires seemed untamed to the onlooker, they were in fact very much regulated. This was my first account at misinformation, and what we take for granted as true knowledge in the west.

Throughout my university career in international development and economics, there have been numerous times when my common-sense pragmaticism has been left questionned with development projects that seemed irresponsible to me. Furthermore, my conception of truth has continuously been questionned by the media sources that I see as reliable. Thus, this blog journey began as I tried to find what was wrong with the current "free" and democratic system which I claim to be a part of...things will get clearer as we move along throughout the weeks.