Photo by: shrff14

I just came across an article on BBC News that discusses the Millennium Development Goals and the progress being made.

Apparently, many countries are doing well in terms of achieving the majority of the goals by 2015. However, many are falling short in the health and education aspects of things.

Sounds interesting. I knew from past experience that it was rather optimistic to try to reach these goals by 2015. I would be really interested in finding more information about what specifically is making these goals so hard to reach. What are the obstacles these nations are facing, and how can they be alleviated?

Photo by: environmentnorth

Here is the link to the speech David Suzuki gave at my university on April 3, 2008. His discussion focuses upon climate change issues and sustainable development- right up my ally!

Enjoy!

Photo by:mknobil 

This film looks awesome!

Dr James Orbinski, the man who was President of MSF at the time that the organization recieved the Nobel Peace Prize in 1999, has teamed up with a host of very talented people to produce what looks to be a very compelling documentary.

After watching the sneak preview on the site, I am really excited to be able to see more. The film is named “Triage”, in reference to a system of medical sorting which is used in cases in which there are mass casualities. Patients are numbered according to their injuries, most often including rankings such as  “deceased”, “immediate”, “delayed” and “minor” aid. In the preview he refers to an incident during the Rwandan civil war in which they were forced to enforce this system due to the mass numbers of casualties and limite resources present.

The film looks to be a focus upon Dr. Orbinski’s approach to humanitarian missions and international development projects. I can’t wait to check it out!

Photo by: chrisrobinson1945

Bednets have often been used in countries with large documented cases of Malaria as a temporary method to reduce cases whilst searching for a large-scale remedy. Although not intended to be use permentantly (the nets need to be replaced every 5 years), they have become a means to provide aid in areas where Malaria is prevalent. The bed nets are embedded with insecticide which ward off mosquitoes.

What most reseach has shown however, is that when these bed nets are provided to the communities for free, they are very seldom used. Many people recieve them from an aid organization, and either sell them to other community members for money, or even use them as fishing nets!

Pride of ownership is to blame for this. People treat things well that they have paid for, because they are proud that they have earned it. Therefore, certain organizations charge minimal amounts of money for these nets, thus ensuring they are put to good use and valued.

This is the general way in which many international aid organization work. I know that the EWB philosophy is most definitely to create pride of ownership in products that we implement, thus we usually try to charge affordable prices for systems such as latrines.

An article written in The Economist in January 2008  discusses the success rate of doing exactly the opposite!

I found it very interesting and I am sure it will spark plenty of debate amongst anyone who often ponders the mechanisms by which we as international organizations and foreigners should try to implement change in the long run in situations such as these.

Happy Reading!

 

 

Okay, so back to Sophie speak.

I am sure that much of the essay I posted below will probably offend some readers! In fact, I was rather taken aback by some of the comments that this fellow blogger made when writing this article. I won’t tear them to bits, I just wanted to make the “other” side of the argument available.

Although I do agree that perhaps boycotting the Olympics is not the accurate means to channel the dissatisfaction that many have with the Chinese government, I would have to argue against the comments about Darfur being a “manufactured” conflict, and the naming of protesting monks as being as bad as Anna Nicole Smith.

So, although I don’t entirely agree with what is being said, I just wanted to clarify that I posted this to see some of the other arguments that are being raised around the debate of the Olympic protesting.

 Below I have added the argument I posted in response to this essay on the site that it has come from:

“I am a Political Science student so many of the arguments you put forward hold true. I just found X’s spin on the situation very different to anything I have read so far on the matter. In fact, I haven’t read any articles on the defending viewpoints of the Chinese people, other than what is published in the mainstream media, and I am sure that is not even the half of it.

I lived in India for three years, so perhaps my opinion is baised but I also agree that it is almost impossible to justify China’s actions against Tibet. Moreover, justifying the actions of the monks as being similar to that of “Anna Nicole Smith” probably also isn’t the best way to demonstrate a point!

I also agree that it is greatly unfair to justify Darfur as being purely manufactured. I really don’t see how one can support that claim either.

However, I still found Yang’s personal account interesting, not necessarily correct…I just wanted to put that out there! I appreciated the differences of X’s argument, however much I disagree with them…and I’ll put that on my blog too!”

There, damage control!

Photo by: http2007

Closing comments:

Those who advocate a boycott frequently claim a moral higher ground or such. Those that argue and rail against that point to Western abuses of human rights with regard to the Native Americans, African Americans, and Europe’s colonial past.

I’d like to make two points here:
1) The fact that the West has committed human rights abuses is irrelevant when judging whether China’s actions were right or wrong.
2) The fact that Western human rights abuses happened means that protesters cannot claim a moral high ground.

A typical response by nationalistic (and possibly hormonal) teenage Chinese-American/Canadian youths to Tibet is “well you don’t see us supporting native american independence!!11! biatch!”:
1) That has nothing to do with whether China is right or wrong in Tibet
2) Read around, facts are not that hard to come by
3) Responding to uninformed/misinformed comments about China with equal nonsense definitely does not help.

Joining on the boycott bandwagon is just a way for people to try to “get involved”. Unfortunately, there are far better ways to further those causes (whether right or wrong), and boycotts and suggestions of boycotts saddens and probably infuriates many other people.
“But there is so much publicity…it’s the perfect chance!”

Yes, there is going to be a lot of publicity, and perhaps it is the perfect chance to be an attention whore. If otherwise the media does not care about the issue, it is neither the group’s fault nor China’s fault. It probably is the media’s fault. Don’t hate the playa, hate the game.

Photo by: anna pearson

The Issues- One by One

Sudan

Many countries invest in Sudan. But because China happens to buy 60-70% of Sudan’s oil, they are targeted. The first choice to target would be Sudan itself, but since it evidently has not worked (as Sudan is conducting trade as normal with mostly non-Western countries), the next candidate should be Sudan’s largest trading partner. Western countries have had investments in Sudan, even in Darfur, before 2002. When the Western media popularized (yes, I say popularized, as the issue did not just pop up one day) the situation in Darfur in 2002, all Western companies pulled out. Most of them signed over their operations to friendly or subsidiary Indian or Chinese companies to avoid the media fallout.

 

While a problem indeed, Darfur’s cause has been essentially manufactured through emotionally-charged language on part of the Western media. It’s the Darfur conflict, not the Darfur genocide. Please realize that the word genocide is (unfortunately) thrown around with impunity by the sensationalist media and the emotionally blackmailing NGOs. The figure of 200 000 dead and 2 million displaced is actually the data from a model done by an American professor in 2002. The same professor later retracted those figures, citing inaccuracies in his modeling formula. But those numbers are printed and reprinted by NGOs (who have a noble cause, but use slightly insidious ways to gain publicity) and the mainstream media networks, citing the figures to each other (ie how to create your own cited facts 101). The UN study has found Darfur to be a conflict zone, not a genocide zone, as have many other articles in peer-reviewed journals. It has also been happening years before 2002.

 

The media spins an emotion-filled and morally righteous picture, but it does not detract from the fact that Darfuris are suffering. Boycotting the Olympics for publicity in hopes that the PRC government will somehow miraculously solve the conflict in Darfur, Sudan, is, to say the least, a little bit naive. The Darfur conflict is a complex issue to which there are no simple solutions, especially not ones that involve a third party who is influenced by misinformed mobs parroting the sensationalist media line. But I agree that the Chinese government should positively influence and coax the government of Omar al-Bashar into solving the Darfur conflict…oh, but they’re already doing that.

 

Burma/Myanmar

When the monks marched last year, the Western world (and many others not in the Western world) marched with them. It looked like the tipping point for a military junta that has, for too long, oppressed its people. Where were the protesters in the West before then? I support Aung San Suu Kyi as much as the next person in Canada, but how do the protesters in Toronto, or London, England, or Paris, France claim any moral superiority if they only protest when everyone else is? When the very plight of the monks, who have always suffered, were being trumpeted by the sensationalist media?

 

But we should boycott the Olympics because then Beijing will use its influence to make Burma all nice and democratic. Please, neither the Burmese nor the Chinese are simpletons. What clout Beijing has in Burma is economic. The political clout comes from years of non-interference of internal affairs…which would understandably evaporate if China starts criticizing the junta publicly. While influential, Chinese economic support/clout with Burma is neither supreme nor irreplaceable. Burmese timber, oil, and gas are happily bought by India or Burma’s neighbours in ASEAN.

 

With an increasingly competitive world commodities market, should China threaten Burma economically, her regional neighbours would be more than happy to pick up the slack. Still, I hope for the development and liberty of the Burmese people. Short of an outright invasion or fermenting internal dissent (of which the CIA is ridiculously good at), there is not much any outsider, even China, can do to influence the junta led by Than Shwe and his generals.

 

 

Tibet

Ah, Tibet, where to begin…a history lesson would be nice.

There seem to exist in the West a myth about the history of Tibet. Apparently before the 1951 invasion/retaking (depending on your view point) of Tibet by the Chinese Communist Party, Tibet was an Himalayan Shangri-La, where everyone trusted, and was happy, in religion and the Dalai Lama ruled peacefully. Even the staunchest Tibet-independence supporters (well, informed ones at any rate) will dismiss that conception of Tibet as childish and naive.

 

Tibet, starting with the Yuan dynasty, has been under the influence of central Chinese administrations while remaining either independent or autonomous up until 1959. Tibetan society was feudal in nature, with the landowners being the lamas of the monasteries and the aristocracy. The vast majority of the Tibetan people were serfs and peasants working on the land of the lamas and aristocrats. It was not a perfect kingdom but a rather harsh theocracy similar to medieval Europe. The Gelugpa sect, of which the Dalai Lama is the most influential member, took hold in the late Yuan/early Ming dynasty through a series of Machiavellian moves against rival sects. During the Qing dynasty, Tibet was under the administration of Lamas who were subordinate to the Manchu emperors. Then the Republic of China.

 

Then a period of autonomy/independence during the Japanese invasion of China. Then the PRC troops entered in 1951. The treaty made in 1951 promised full autonomy. When the terms of the treaty were slow in being implemented, resentment rose. The CIA, ever resourceful, incited and supported a rebellion in 1959, starting in western Kham (look up a map of Tibet, it’ll be easier that way), Chamdo, and finally to Lhasa. The revolt was crushed, and the Dalai Lama fled into exile.

 

Now…it is my belief that the Dalai Lama in 1959 was not to be held responsible for his actions, as at the tender age of 24, he was far too inexperienced in politics to be cognizant of the underlying geopolitical implications. I personally believe that the Dalai Lama is a genuinely nice guy who probably deserves his Nobel Peace Prize. What I have issues with though is his advisors and the Tibetan exile population in general. The 1959 revolt was largely supported by the lamas and the aristocracy. Why? Because they lost the most in communist-style land reforms. As the principal landowners in Tibet, the lamas (via the monastery) and the aristocrats saw all their wealth evaporate. Those who were used to being feudal lords now had to toil beside their serfs in the field. It is my belief that these lamas and aristocrats influenced the young Dalai Lama in 1959 and continue to try to do so to this day. It is largely because of these advisors that the PRC government refuses to negotiate.

 

Here I must recommend an article in the 1st March issue of the Economist about this topic. I do not think that the PRC government is using the correct balance of soft and hard approaches in Tibet. The people of Tibet no doubt wish for the return of the Dalai Lama, but no one wants a return to the feudal lifestyle under the lamas. Unfortunately, the PRC government will not/can not engage in dialogue with the Dalai Lama just by himself, and he himself is causing resentment among the Tibetan exiles because of his conciliatory approach.

 

The protesting of the Olympics by Tibetan exiles for publicity is quite selfish. It amounts to nothing more than Britney or Anna Nicole Smith’s publicity stunts. The Dalai Lama goes on tour lecturing, promotes peaceful reconciliation, and has shown he is willing to compromise with the PRC government (by affirming the One China principle and by the refusal to endorse boycotts). I do not like to parrot, but I do think the Economist has it right when they said that the economic solution that placated unrest in other parts of China is not working in Tibet. I think that the PRC government should attempt to engage the Dalai Lama, ignoring his advisors if they must. But to use the Olympics as a method of protest is just a sad and selfish publicity stunt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photo by: HighTechDad

So you want to boycott the 2008 Olympics – A foray into mythbusting

Usually I dismiss protests and demonstrations as events organized by a small, passionate, and probably well-informed group of people. I dismiss them because to me, they are events attended by a large, uninformed/misinformed, and bandwagon-hopping mob. What really caught my attention this time was the sharp twang of annoyance at misinformation that went through me as I read the news. China and Sudan, China and Burma/Myanmar, China and Tiananmen, China and Tibet, Protests outside the Chinese embassy, Olympic flame harassed in London, Olympic flame planned to be harassed in Paris. It was as if everyone suddenly developed a selective conscience, or an extraordinarily large amount of people had been grossly misinformed. That, or I was living in a government-spun bubble of the Glorious People’s Republic. (I hope those that are reading, who also possess strong feelings on this subject matter, will note that the preceding sentence was a stab at humour)

Given the general misinformed nature of the protesters (but I hold adamant that a small number of protesters have actually thought about the issue), it should be said that the pro-Chinese government side is not all rosy either. With such names as Don’t free Tibet because the Dalai Lhama is an asshole dictator, it becomes hard to take them seriously.

Take Two

There are two dichotomies that I’d like to make: that between the state and the culture, and that between politics and sports. The latter has probably already sent some readers into a venomous diatribe about the poor brain-washed author. Politics and sports should not be mixed. In reality, they often are. The 1936 Olympics in Berlin was a clear platform for the National Socialists to broadcast to the world. It should be noted though, that the athletes, staff, and majority of the organizers did not have connections to the Nazi party.

The participants tried to keep the politics and sports separated, while the state tried to mix it. Likewise, I would wager that the majority of participants, organizers, volunteers, and others connected with the 2008 Olympics have politics far off in their list of “things-to-tie-to-the-Olympics”. It is obvious that these Olympics are a debutante ball for the PRC government. Given the sensitive nature of the culture of honour/shame in a Confucian society, the PRC government has downplayed the explicit political ties. I have always liked the maxim that two wrongs do not make a right. If the PRC government implicitly involving politics with the Games is wrong, then what about explicit political groups directly tying the Games to politics?

The other dichotomy that I mentioned is that between the state and the culture. That is to say that the PRC government and the Chinese people are not interchangeable terms. Political groups trying to put pressure on the PRC government over a myriad of issues advocate a boycott of the Olympic games. Understandably, the PRC government will suffer from both bad press domestically and internationally. However, an actual boycott (which thankfully does not seem likely at all) ends up hurting both the feelings and pride of the Chinese people.

In a formulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative, the needs and happiness of the 1.2 billion Chinese people outweigh any pressures on the happiness of the 73 million Chinese Communist Party members. It just so happens that because of bullish nature of China’s economic growth that the majority of Chinese citizen tolerate and even like (oh noes! *note: sarcasm again) the PRC government. Contrary to majority Western media depiction, the PRC is not a police state with Stalinist terror forces. Most of the time, the CCP worries about the feelings of the people (as internal unrest is their one true fear), not the other way around. Still, a distinction between the government and the culture/people should be made.

Steven Spielberg

Dear Steven quit as one of the artistic directors of the opening ceremonies a few months ago. My question is, did he not know about the PRC government’s foreign relations and domestic policies beforehand?

 

 

Photo by: prakhar

So a fellow International Development blogger (whose name I shall withhold), wrote this very interesting post on another development blog site. With their permission to repost, I am going to put it on this blog, because I find it offers a very different view of what is currently going on in current events re: the Olympic torch and the Chinese/Tibet scenario.

Don’t get me wrong, I do not necessarily agree with everything written, I just think it offers a very differnt look into the opposite side of the argument.

I will break it up into a few posts…it is a long one and has a lot to say!

 

Photo by: aussiegall

So, on March 29, 2008 the world held the second annual Earth Hour. Designed to encourage people to take action in terms of climate change, all we had to do was turn our lights off from 8 pm until 9 pm that evening.

So why was so much of downtown Montreal lit up!? People were even debating whether to watch the hockey game or not! (okay I confess I watched the game by candlelight!)

Considering I didn’t see my city go into too much darkness, I would be interested to find out if yours did! Much of the press has marked Earth Hour as a success, but I would like to know if this is just them taking an extremely positive spin on things or if the event was actually of any productive success.

Although I didn’t obviously see a great difference in the Montreal city skyline, apparently Canada as a country came out pretty high on the list of great particpants for the evening.

However, after all the fun and games of sitting in the dark for an hour has settled, how many of us are going to remember the reason we turned off the lights to begin with? Part of me wants to be very optimistic about Earth Hour (its an Aussie effort and I am an Aussie myself!), but I wonder whether or not those in charge of the event really put an image out there that will stick.

I do not know if it was entirely clear to everyone what Earth Hour really is about. The name and logo itself (see above), demonstrate that it is something global and associated with the number “60″, but not much else. Moreover, how did these images, and turning off the lights for an hour, persuade those who don’t believe that climate change is an issue, change their minds?

I have to give them credit though, raising awareness is the first step to changing habits and I think Earth Hour was a huge success from that standpoint. It got ridiculous media coverage and considering last year it was a Sydney only affair, the fact that it streched across the globe and stopped only at Vancouver is a pretty impressive feat.

Some also argue that Earth Hour was a symbolic protest, and in that sense too it was entirely successful. As long as it kept thinking about the Earth for days, weeks and months afterwards, I don’t really see how this is a protest that had much significance.

I did find, however, that personally, after my hour of candle-lit darkness I didn’t necessarily want to turn my light back on. And perhaps it is here that the success lies. It did make me stop and think and it did make me consider the fact that a life less of less consuming isn’t that hard to achieve, or that inconvenient.

So, did you turn the lights off?