So Israel is attacking Gaza in retaliation to rocket attacks. The rockets from Gaza were in retaliation to the blockade and collective punishment imposed by Israel. The blockade was in retaliation for the people of Gaza electing Hamas. Hamas was elected in retaliation for …. And so on, and so on, back to the British, the second World War, Moses and Abraham.
Why is the blame game the most enduring of all? Is it because people, and especially governments, find it easier to pass responsibility for disputes than to address and resolve them, even when this means that the disputes escalate and become more entrenched? Extremists need each other and so Likud and Hamas have a lot in common since neither wants a compromise.
Peace is impossible without justice, and a majority of both Israelis and Palestinians accepted in principle the 2003 Geneva Accord. This required Israel to return almost all the land occupied since 1967 to the Palestinians and accept Jerusalem as the shared capital of both Israel and a new Palestinian state. It also required the Palestinians to recognise the state of Israel and abandon the right of return, though with compensation to be negotiated.
As long as the Israeli and Palestinian hardliners are calling the tune, the blame game will continue indefinitely and more people will suffer on both sides (though far more on the Palestinian side).
The key to progress lies in changing the game to support moderates and those who would prefer to claim the credit for resolving the dispute. Since Bush, Brown and Blair have proved themselves utterley inadequate, the ball now passes to Obama. Hopefully, he will play a different game.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Sunday, December 28, 2008
The elephant and the mouse
There was once an elephant and a mouse living next door to each other. Now although the elephant was the largest and strongest of creatures, it did not know much about the world and was actually scared of things that were different, even mice. Naturally, the mouse had to spend most of its time and energy avoiding being trampled by the elephant. As a result, it became quick-witted and adaptable, but had no energy left to grow strong and healthy.
One night, the elephant had a dream that it need not be scared of other things and woke up determined that change was possible. The mouse, whose name was Cuba, was very happy at the idea that they might actually be able to live peacefully together as neighbours.
Cubans are nothing if not realistic. Whilst they have hopes that Obama may relax the embargo which has crippled the Cuban economy for several decades, they realise that the older Cuban-Americans, who are vehemently opposed to any change, still exert influence in US politics, even though younger ones are so integrated into US society that they have no interest in returning to Cuba or opposing change.
The US imposed embargo has had a serious impact on the Cuban economy by reducing opportunities for international trade and forcing the country to live by its wits with minimal natural resources. Despite these constraints, Cuba has much of which to be proud. The civil defence system is arguably the best in the world in that although two of the worst hurricanes in recent memory, (Gustavo and Ike), destroyed over half a million houses and large areas of tobacco and other agricultural products, only about two people died as a direct result and these were reportedly due to people leaving shelters. Whilst the mayor of New Orleans was boasting on CNN that the city had successfully evacuated a few thousand people to areas of safety, no mention was made of the fact that Cuba successfully protected over 300,000 people. The country has a vibrant culture and its health and educational systems have enabled the country to equal the US in terms of Human Development Indicators (a more useful guide to social wellbeing than GDP, since they measure infant mortality, levels of literacy and life expectancy, etc).
However, it should also be acknowledged that domestic economic management in Cuba has been a failure. Vast tracts of fertile land remain uncultivated, since farmers understandably see no point in working hard if they are forced to sell most of their produce to the state for a pittance. Similarly, joint ventures with foreign investors often fail if the Cuban government suspects that they are making what are considered excessive profits, or if an investor falls out of favour.
During a recent visit to Cuba, nobody spoke about Fidel in other than positive terms. It was acknowledged that whilst he was authoritarian, he was also inspirational and idealistic. No such affection appeared to exist towards his brother Raül, who assumed the presidency in February this year and who, as head of the military, seems intent on maintaining tight political control. Whilst Cubans may now legally stay in hotels, the costs prevent this for all but a small minority. Similarly, it is now legal to own a cellphone, but getting a line is far too expensive for the average worker.
Cubans, especially the young, are desperate for change and feel that whilst they are proud of their country and the achievements of the revolution, this very achievement makes it unnecessary for them to fight the same battle as their parents and grandparents fifty years ago.
This pressure for progress poses a genuine problem for the government. If it relaxes political control too far, or too quickly, the country may fall into the sort of chaos faced by Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. At the same time, Cuba is constrained from adopting the Chinese approach of liberalising the economy whilst maintaining strong state controls politically because they have a minute domestic market and no internal capital base.
Intriguingly, the presidents of both Russia and China have visited Cuba in the last month and as both these new political and economic giants are immune to US economic pressure, this may open options for domestic change. Certainly, one observer indicated that the party is planning a major review of economic policy in 2009 in order to provide incentives for farmers and workers in other sectors to increase production and to reduce dependency on tourism as a source of hard currency.
Official concern that this may increase social and economic inequality has to be offset by the fact that there is already a massive disparity in incomes between a senior professional earning at most US$40 a month, a primary school teacher receiving US$8 a month and those working in tourism who can earn up to US$250 a month. Such disparities also force many trained professionals to abandon their vocations to take any work where they can earn foreign currency. This is not only a waste of their education, but a source of great personal frustration. One taxi driver told me he was a qualified engineer who could earn far more in a week as a driver than he could as an engineer. He consoled himself that he “was still an engineer in his heart”.
Anyone planning a book on economics in Cuba would do well to use the title “It all depends”, since this is the answer given if you ask the price of anything. It alls depends on whether you work in, or know somebody working in the sector, you have something to swap, or are paying in local, or foreign currency. The failure of the formal economy has forced large sections of the population into an illegal black or informal economy which in turn enables the authorities to selectively punish those it deems a threat.
A pessimistic assessment of the future would be for the military, which already enjoys considerable influence and economic benefits, to increase its hold over both political and economic spheres to the detriment of both economic and social progress. An optimistic assessment for the country’s talented and creative population would involve a relaxation of the US embargo once Obama is in power, followed by a steady increase in external investment managed by an increasingly pragmatic and self-confident government. This would facilitate a range of joint ventures with foreign investors and donors in ways which can build the economy and maintain high standards of public services and welfare, whist accepting a degree of difference in the allocation of benefits (as exists already).
The global economic crisis has destroyed faith in unregulated markets even in the bastions of neo-liberalism. In doing so, it has opened the door to approaches which seek to achieve a balance between social justice and environmentally sustainable economic development. Obama’s election provides hope that the US may place a higher priority on meeting social policy objectives which can reduce inequality. Similarly, there are signs in Cuba that Raül Castro will relax central government controls and promote economic growth and investment, possibly with Russian or Chinese help.
As Cuba prepares to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the revolution in the beginning of 2009, a gesture from the US to progressively relax the embargo could help build confidence that change is possible for both countries.
One night, the elephant had a dream that it need not be scared of other things and woke up determined that change was possible. The mouse, whose name was Cuba, was very happy at the idea that they might actually be able to live peacefully together as neighbours.
Cubans are nothing if not realistic. Whilst they have hopes that Obama may relax the embargo which has crippled the Cuban economy for several decades, they realise that the older Cuban-Americans, who are vehemently opposed to any change, still exert influence in US politics, even though younger ones are so integrated into US society that they have no interest in returning to Cuba or opposing change.
The US imposed embargo has had a serious impact on the Cuban economy by reducing opportunities for international trade and forcing the country to live by its wits with minimal natural resources. Despite these constraints, Cuba has much of which to be proud. The civil defence system is arguably the best in the world in that although two of the worst hurricanes in recent memory, (Gustavo and Ike), destroyed over half a million houses and large areas of tobacco and other agricultural products, only about two people died as a direct result and these were reportedly due to people leaving shelters. Whilst the mayor of New Orleans was boasting on CNN that the city had successfully evacuated a few thousand people to areas of safety, no mention was made of the fact that Cuba successfully protected over 300,000 people. The country has a vibrant culture and its health and educational systems have enabled the country to equal the US in terms of Human Development Indicators (a more useful guide to social wellbeing than GDP, since they measure infant mortality, levels of literacy and life expectancy, etc).
However, it should also be acknowledged that domestic economic management in Cuba has been a failure. Vast tracts of fertile land remain uncultivated, since farmers understandably see no point in working hard if they are forced to sell most of their produce to the state for a pittance. Similarly, joint ventures with foreign investors often fail if the Cuban government suspects that they are making what are considered excessive profits, or if an investor falls out of favour.
During a recent visit to Cuba, nobody spoke about Fidel in other than positive terms. It was acknowledged that whilst he was authoritarian, he was also inspirational and idealistic. No such affection appeared to exist towards his brother Raül, who assumed the presidency in February this year and who, as head of the military, seems intent on maintaining tight political control. Whilst Cubans may now legally stay in hotels, the costs prevent this for all but a small minority. Similarly, it is now legal to own a cellphone, but getting a line is far too expensive for the average worker.
Cubans, especially the young, are desperate for change and feel that whilst they are proud of their country and the achievements of the revolution, this very achievement makes it unnecessary for them to fight the same battle as their parents and grandparents fifty years ago.
This pressure for progress poses a genuine problem for the government. If it relaxes political control too far, or too quickly, the country may fall into the sort of chaos faced by Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. At the same time, Cuba is constrained from adopting the Chinese approach of liberalising the economy whilst maintaining strong state controls politically because they have a minute domestic market and no internal capital base.
Intriguingly, the presidents of both Russia and China have visited Cuba in the last month and as both these new political and economic giants are immune to US economic pressure, this may open options for domestic change. Certainly, one observer indicated that the party is planning a major review of economic policy in 2009 in order to provide incentives for farmers and workers in other sectors to increase production and to reduce dependency on tourism as a source of hard currency.
Official concern that this may increase social and economic inequality has to be offset by the fact that there is already a massive disparity in incomes between a senior professional earning at most US$40 a month, a primary school teacher receiving US$8 a month and those working in tourism who can earn up to US$250 a month. Such disparities also force many trained professionals to abandon their vocations to take any work where they can earn foreign currency. This is not only a waste of their education, but a source of great personal frustration. One taxi driver told me he was a qualified engineer who could earn far more in a week as a driver than he could as an engineer. He consoled himself that he “was still an engineer in his heart”.
Anyone planning a book on economics in Cuba would do well to use the title “It all depends”, since this is the answer given if you ask the price of anything. It alls depends on whether you work in, or know somebody working in the sector, you have something to swap, or are paying in local, or foreign currency. The failure of the formal economy has forced large sections of the population into an illegal black or informal economy which in turn enables the authorities to selectively punish those it deems a threat.
A pessimistic assessment of the future would be for the military, which already enjoys considerable influence and economic benefits, to increase its hold over both political and economic spheres to the detriment of both economic and social progress. An optimistic assessment for the country’s talented and creative population would involve a relaxation of the US embargo once Obama is in power, followed by a steady increase in external investment managed by an increasingly pragmatic and self-confident government. This would facilitate a range of joint ventures with foreign investors and donors in ways which can build the economy and maintain high standards of public services and welfare, whist accepting a degree of difference in the allocation of benefits (as exists already).
The global economic crisis has destroyed faith in unregulated markets even in the bastions of neo-liberalism. In doing so, it has opened the door to approaches which seek to achieve a balance between social justice and environmentally sustainable economic development. Obama’s election provides hope that the US may place a higher priority on meeting social policy objectives which can reduce inequality. Similarly, there are signs in Cuba that Raül Castro will relax central government controls and promote economic growth and investment, possibly with Russian or Chinese help.
As Cuba prepares to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the revolution in the beginning of 2009, a gesture from the US to progressively relax the embargo could help build confidence that change is possible for both countries.
A blessing in disguise?
So, the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) predicts that UK economy could shrink by as much as 2.9% next year as bank lending continues to stagnate. Yet the very same Windows Live headlines for today, 27 December, also noted in its top story that “internet retail group IMRG estimates e-shoppers will splurge £103.6 million, up from the £84 million spent last year”.
Is this possibly the large throw of the dice from desperate gamblers keen to rake in what they can with what they have got left, or while they still have jobs? Can we really spend our way out of recession as Gordon Brown proposes? Interestingly, it seems that the top selling items are high quality televisions and laptop computers being bought by people upgrading existing equipment, rather than buying something for the first time.
The problem for Brown and his ilk is that, once we have upgraded our TVs and computers, what will we spend money on then, even if we still have a job? Yet another new bathroom or kitchen? Yet more clothes? The latest playstation? The fact is that most people in the UK and other affluent societies already have most of the necessities of life, much of it with designer labels attached, so do we really need more of the same? Is increased consumption really the answer to having a decent quality of life?
Surely the answer is not to encourage more profligate and unnecessary consumerism, but to spend money on improving our infrastructure and public services, in ways which make less demands on the environment and non-renewable resources and make us a better society? Even more importantly, can we use our human and material resources to make the world a fairer and more sustainable to live in? When the wealth of the richest 200 people in the world equals the total wealth of the poorest 40% of the world’s population, something needs to change.
The current recession is a well overdue wake-up call to reassess what we need and want out of life. When the material necessities for a decent standard of living have been met in the West, largely thanks, it has to be said, due to the efficiency of markets, it is now time to move on and ask less material questions, such as what do we need to be happy. This is an issue which markets are not equipped to address. We need a new vision and leaders to help realise it.
Those of us born during or just after the last world war know what it is like to manage with little. We are therefore possibly better equipped to cope with recession than those born later, when things were easier. We also remember times when people had a sense of community and consideration for others before Thatcher and Reagan set in train a selfish, greedy approach to life which even denied that such a thing as society existed! The irony is, of course, that having destroyed something that they said did not exist, the Tory Party under David Cameron now claims that we live in a broken society that, yes, the Tory Party can rebuild!
The real tragedy is that New Labour was so desperate to reassure Middle England that they would not raise taxes that they did Thatcher’s work for her by continuing her economic policies, only with even greater emphasis on state control. The temporary hope that Gordon Brown would change direction after Blair headed off to make his millions to whoever would pay him proved illusory, leaving us with a government which is morally, philosophically and intellectually bankrupt and an official opposition which is elitist and opportunistic.
So what can we expect from the Liberal Democrats? Clegg may lack charisma, but is making a sound case for a fairer society and for policies to address climate change. Since we live in what are challenging times for optimists, maybe the best we can hope for is for a hung parliament in which the LibDems have sufficient influence to make Vince Cable Chancellor of the Exchequer under a government led by anyone other than Gordon Brown. After all, it was him who did more than anyone to get us into this mess.
We desperately need politicians who have a sense of what is needed in the post neo-liberal world into which we are moving. The current recession will hopefully provide the conditions for such a new vision of society and economics to emerge and the right leaders to help realise it.
The reason why so much is expected of Obama is that he appears to understand these concerns and have the qualities needed to address them. The recession will hurt countless people in the short term, but if this is what it takes to bring humanity to its senses, it will turn out to be a blessing in disguise.
Friday, December 19, 2008
All friends together - with their backs against the wall!
With the giveaway name of Bernard Madoff relieving investors of US$50 billion (not a typing error) of their money, the US regulators responsible for overseeing such the financial sector (the Securities and Exchange Commission) have been coming in for some well justified criticism. The SEC Chairman Christopher Cox has even grovelled in public, though only to pass the buck down the ladder to paid employees so that the commissioners, who are politically appointed and therefore ultimately responsible, can try to wash their hands of blame.
Of course, we do things differently in the UK. Don't we? Well, actually, no. It's not only quagmires like Iraq that New Labour has followed the US into. We have also followed their approach of 'light-touch' regulation of the financial sector. A key reason why UK banks got so heavily into trouble following the US sub-prime housing scandal was because the UK regulatory authority, the Financial Services Authority, was funded by - guess who? - the very banks it was mandated to regulate! Its like authorising prisoners to run the prison to ensure nobody escapes. With such a cosy relationship, no wonder things went wrong.
Another fine mess you've landed us in Gordon!
Of course, we do things differently in the UK. Don't we? Well, actually, no. It's not only quagmires like Iraq that New Labour has followed the US into. We have also followed their approach of 'light-touch' regulation of the financial sector. A key reason why UK banks got so heavily into trouble following the US sub-prime housing scandal was because the UK regulatory authority, the Financial Services Authority, was funded by - guess who? - the very banks it was mandated to regulate! Its like authorising prisoners to run the prison to ensure nobody escapes. With such a cosy relationship, no wonder things went wrong.
Another fine mess you've landed us in Gordon!
New name, same purpose
Welcome! My wife Rita put me up to having my own blog, no doubt so that I would have another source for my rants than herself. Initially, I called it housingindevelopment, but as my rants began to cover more ground, Rita suggested I rename it (another sensible idea!).
So here goes. I will upload materials from the old blog onto this one shortly and hope that it may generate a trickle of interest from others with similar concerns.
Season's greetings!
Geoff
So here goes. I will upload materials from the old blog onto this one shortly and hope that it may generate a trickle of interest from others with similar concerns.
Season's greetings!
Geoff
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
