truth...

"walk as much as you can because buying gaz pays for the war"

Rights and Ownership of Forrests in India

So two things came to mind while I was reading this today that were referred to in our seminar class:
the first is that the "Recognition of Forest Rights Bill 2005, which would give an estimated 40 million people ownership rights to the land they've been using, is expected to pass by the end of the year" . This is one case, where the indigenous people are actually claiming their land rights back from the government. The details were not included, but this must include changing policy in patent restrictions and the transfer of indigenous knowledge in the region.

The second is that the computers, cell phones and televisions donated by Western nations to developing countries are an environmental threat. In some cases, the products are so out-dated that they are usually thrown out and burned in open air sites, releasing harmful chemicals.

Thought it was pretty interesting, seeing that it seemed like such a good idea in class to donate old e-technology. This just highlights that we need something new, or we need to create incentives to change.

the truth about Cambodia

Ever been to Cambodia? Its a beautiful country with beautiful people. The cities are full of life. But they are also full of reminders about what went on their just a couple decdes ago Only once you are there can you really find out the truth about Cambodia. Littering the countryside in Laos and Cambodia are landmines. You visit some lanscapes and you aren't allowed to go for a walk because they are still detonating them. This has an impact on the economy, not to mention the mind, in the countryside.

The US refuses to sign the land mine treaety, banning them in warfare. This fact continues to upset, and righfully so, citizens around the world. When you see a man hobbling around Phnom Penh with only one leg and four children, you start to wonder why the US won't suck it up.

Truth is the casualty. Without the US support, their is major lack of funding in the extraction of land mines in several countries worldwide. Why won't they help? Because the US put most of those land mines down in the first place. And this was morally wrong. If the government does give in and sign the treaty, then it would prove that the international community has the power to sway the US to give up an essential ground weapon. If they were able to achieve this, what else could they do?

The discussion is frustrating.

But, I'm not done with Cambodia.
A little history
- Vietnam War spilled over into Cambodia
- Nixon and Kissinger adminstirations launched numerous air attacks along the borders of Vietnam, killing many Cambodians (not to mention the landmines also).
- In March 1970, there was a CIA backed coup that deposed King NOrodom Sihanouk.
- He was replaced by a pro-Washington man named Lon Nol. The social consequences of this breathed new life into the Khmer Rouge, an extreme communist organization.
- Pol Pot (KR), took power in April 1975
- There was the genocide
- The communist part of the regime was supported by China.

This means that the West denied development AID by the UN in the years after the genocide. The West demonizes and punishes Cambodia and Vietnam for not aligning.
When will they learn better?

Schiller

Herbert Schiller is a media critic and analyzes communication policy in the United States. He explains how the political economy and mass communications are intertwined in such an important way in order to mobilize international support for US global domination and the transnational corporate order post World War 2. The promise of trickle down effects and thorough development in the developing world tend to be discounted in the discourse, though in most cases this is just a claim to be patient with the status quo. Schiller talks about the way the media tends to manage the mind, but focusing on the obvious through repetition and editing, rather than allowing one to make one’s own judgments.

He quotes Joseph Nye saying “ In truth, the 21st century, not the 20th, will turn out to be the period of America’s greatest preeminence. Information is the new coin of the international realm, and the United States is better positioned than any other country multiply the potency of its hard and soft power resources through information”.

He then quotes Rothkopf saying “ It is in the economic and political interests of the United States to ensure that, if the world is moving to a common language, it be English; that, if the world is becoming linked by television, radio and music, the programming be American; and that, if common values are being developed, they be values with which Americans are comfortable…Americans should not deny thee fact that, of all the nations in the history of the world, theirs is the most just, the most tolerant, the most willing to constantly reassess and improve itself, and the best model for the future.”.

How messed up is that? And these are policy makers, people at the top of the American hierarchy! It’s a disgrace…


Works cited:
Schiller, Herbert. "Dominating the Electronic Era: Towards a new century of American imperialism"
source: http://mondediplo.com/1998/09/02schiller

"The End of Suburbia" and life as we know it.

Neo liberalism is relying on a society based on fear. Globalization is just a subset of colonialism and exploitation. When will they learn that this is not the way of achieving, or maintaining the status quo. We must learn soon.

We watched "The End of Suburbia: Oil Depletion and the Decline of the American Dream" which quickly showed how things are going to have to change in the first world. The first time I watched it was after the big march last winter for the G8 meetings that were taking palce in Montreal. At the time, the discussion was intense and heated because I was in a room full of angry activist types. This time, we watched it in class of mine about suburban fiction. This isn't fiction, it is truth. The rapidity in which we exploit oil and gas and all other natural resources is phenomenal. The movie explained how American geography is constructed around the fact that we have cars. It also explained that the oil reserves are depleting. This will make oil and gas more expensive in the future. Once prices are too high for the majority of the population, all of these suburbs will no longer be able to subsist the way they are now. There are major suburbs and town all along major highways. People commute to work, hours a day, because they can. But this way of life won't be able to survive for very long. We take our actions for granted, and our dreams are the justification. We don't want to change the status quo because we are comfortable. Any shift would mean a questioning of our way of life. But the movie points out so much. Like how international trade relies on expensive cross ocean transport systems. Once the oil is gone, these voyages will be impossible. Thus all of this easy outsourcing we rely on will not longer be valid.

Its strange how so many people won't see this movie, but how crucial it is to understand what needs to happen in the near future.

The Ecology of Commerce.

I met a shaman type guy in the park the other day and he gave me a book called "The Ecology of Commerce".


The truth about the environment crisis worldwide has always been a casualty because of the efforts of business and the ongoings of the economy, although the movement is gaining some momentum. From the "The Ecology of Commerce" (which I keep calling the ecology of hope to my friends- for some reason completely disillusioned in this ambitious book), Paul Hawken clearly sets up an array of important social criticisms that should guide is un the manner in which we approach future expansion in business. He argues " the concept of freedom is so vital to the American psyche that we often dismiss the missteps of corporations as aberrations. We know there can be greed, vanity and raw power at the heart of corporate America, but we hope that the equilibrating forces of the marketplaces will sort out the winners and losers in such a way that our own freedoms are not impinged upon, and our own vices remain unscathed" (77). Paul Hawken is one of the leading social philosophers, environmental policy analysts and sustainability developers of our time. He also believes that politically, we have to stand up for stronger moral grounds. He points out that “ the problems to be faced are vast and complex, but come down to this: 5.5 billion people are breeding exponentially. The process of fulfilling their wants and needs is stripping the earth of its biotic capacity to produce life; a climactic bust of consumption by a single species is overwhelming the skies, earth, waters and faune. Making matter worse, we are in the middle of a once- in – billion year blowout sale of hydrocarbons. They are being combusted at a rate that will effectively double-glaze the planet within the next fifty year…”. Don’t get me started about donuts.

In every which manner this book highlighted what I have come to learn in my studies in international development, economics and environmental policy. We need to redesign the economic system so that business itself doesn’t kill us in the long run. Enough with dealing with the problem on the micro level, it takes a great overview to get past the generalizations made in the media, and in our dialogue about the subject. Each paragraph underlines vital economic paradigms that continue to stain the way in which we deal with the third world. I think that we should look to such a book for inspiration for the way that each human being looks at his/her own responsibility in the decades to come. It is aberrant that the capitalist system, with the United States as its motherboard, allows the exploitation of land and people in such an expansive manner. Both my education from childhood and that which I have learned throughout my university career have taught me to be cynical of the "progress and innovation" that we seem so proud of. In no way do I want to dismiss what current scientific advancements are being made. However, I have seen significant tropes and disillusionments from the international community as to how to curb the destruction and neglect brought about by taking advantage of the third world, and even communities and environments very close to home. As an example here, I would like to refer to my years of tree planting where I was working for toilet paper and newspaper's corporate giants. These giants are destroying the beautiful Canadian landscapes that we so often admire as "picture perfect". As I would stand there in the middle of my planted plot of this new forest, I would cry. Not to say that us hippies don't benefit from these jobs. My friends came back a few weeks ago from British Columbia where they racked up a nice $22,000 each for their summer student jobs. Ethically the consequences are much larger than they seem. You try absently to forget that the very trees that you are planting will be cut down in 15-40 years for yet another copy of yesterday's news.

This shows us that although we might want to perceive our efforts to be positive, mostly we don’t understand the deeper pictures.

Lack of Focus...

"Even with the apparent acknowledgement of economic development being an important issue in achieving press freedom, there does seem to be a clearly Western notion of what consitutes press freedom- notably that in general the less state influence in the news media the freer the press."(Campbell 49)

CNN as an open-ended news format. Instead of being about the validity and accuracy of the report, the emphasis shifts to the strength of impression of validity and accuracy because of a demonstration of presence at the time. This is a kind of "immersive storytelling"(251). The journalists themselves tend to lose the capacity to organize their thoughts in a manner that is constructive. Rather , the viewer feels voyeurisitic, as we are given glimpse of news through what the newsroom finds crucial and important.

"An ongoing problem and, what I think, is a constraint to democracy and the freedom of expression within the media freedom press is the question of whether purchase of media entities, especially television networks, by large corporations limits journalistic freedom. "(Freedom House, 2004).

This is where the internet now comes into play. The internet is allowing us to voice our personal opinion and to mobilize along those lines, rather than presupposed and preguided world views and thought processes. This could allow information anarchism where the major news outlets are consistently questioned for the accuracy of their data, as well as their biased opinions. As discussed in class, the internet has a variety of different benefits, although not without their own problems. The most emphasized at this point of time, is a lack of attached credibility from a number of sources. It becomes very hard to distinguish fact from fiction. Nevertheless, it has allowed for everyone to make their point on-line. This has allowed the increase of citizen journalism, in areas that had before been monopolized by media elites. Now, anyone can comment and make their own suggestive attempts at reasoning.

It also has allowed a voice for the voiceless.

My cousin Nisha is working presently in Thailand, next to the northern border with Burma/ Myanmar. There are several refugee camps there that need a voice because they have long been forgotten by the Burmese government, and have no real space within Thailand. Nisha works in a school there with people my age, young adults, and is trying to create a program that links the schools there with schools in the West. This is not only to access new resources but also to create dialogue between cultures that know close to nothing about each other. This has benefited the refugee population in many ways, as well as created some hope for the citizens of Burma. However, the case of Burma is so far from being solved, it is hard to get a grasp at the problems there, as well as in the bordering refugee camps. It seems like Burma is a lost cause for the UN. With more public exposure and pressure, there has been a push of interest from the international community. But it’s been a long time coming. The US government has only recently recognized that extended economic sanctions against the country aren't having enough impact on the situation, it is only deteriorating the country’s infrastructure even more. What needs to happen is a promoting of democratic ideals and a focus in alleviating massive human rights violations within the country. Rather than isolating the state, the US should follow the lead of ASEAN countries and engage with the leader. The military junta in power there has repackaged itself with the new name “State Peace and Development Council”, but the terror remains the same within its borders. Not to mention the crippling economic environment that has led to horrific living conditions, the regime also has a horrible human rights record that involved repression of political dissidents ( namely Aung Suu Kyi and followers), forced labor, ethnic persecution, lack of religious freedom and trade in persons indiscriminately.

The humanitarian crisis there is a given, like so many that have happened before.

What should be more important for the US is that Burma (Myanmar) is at the nexus between China and India, the two international powers that the US should be most aware of in the following decade. There is much to say about this and I won't go into it now. The point is that the US government should start listening to the truth about what is going on the country, rather than sitting on the sidelines, believing that non-action is the way to go. There is now a generation of youth that were born in refugee camps. They do not have a country of origin and they feel like they will be misplaced and forgotten forever. Nonetheless, their words are on-line just waiting to be read. We must follow through with our obligations as citizens of the Earth.

(What I really think is happening though, in some part, is that Burma is part of the Golden Triangle of the opium trade. Resolutely, I think that the US may be proposing counternarcotics efforts, but in some ways they don’t want the trade to stop. This is an entire new topic: “America’s War on Drugs”, which I have many issues with. Realistically, although the newspapers may claim that there has been major law-enforcement within the borders between the three countries, the results have little to no effect within the population. When I was in Northern Thailand, I met a few travelers- might I say junkies- who explained how simple it was to get opium from Burma. All you needed was money, and it wasn’t even that much. Mirrored in this conversation is the Columbian problem of cocaine trade, and how the US has failed to implement major changes there. The amount of internal corruption in these two countries, as well as the fact that the steady flow of drugs assures compensation for the country’s leaders, continuous a vicious cycle that is not so easily overlooked…In Columbia the war on drugs is a war on the South American poor who extract the resource for a living. Rather than reaping the benefits, they are just another clog in a massive industry. Bush’ war on drugs is missing the point. The US has consistently misunderstood their battles within Columbia, blurring the lines between counterdrug and counterinsurgency missions there.)


Works cited:

Cambell, Vincent "Information Age Journalism: journalism in an international context" London: Arnold, 2004

Freedom House Freedom of the Press 2004- a global survey of media independence Lanham: Rowaman &Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2004

Seib, Philip "Going Live: getting the news right in a real-time, online world" updated edition Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2002