FOR many Hollywood celebrities, political causes have always been akin to badges of honour. Some like Cameron Diaz have been quite prescient in carving out positions. The actress became a vocal critic of George W. Bush long before he was elected president in 2000 and embarked on a course that alienated much of America and the world.
During a recent trip through Peru, however, Diaz discovered the perils of desecrating — even unintentionally — the past. While visiting the historical Machu Picchu site, the star happened to carry along a bag she had purchased in China that featured a political slogan deemed offensive by local people.The green bag with a red star and the words “serve the people” printed in Chinese brought back memories of Peru’s war against the Shining Path Maoist rebels in the 1980s and 90s, which claimed up to 69,000 lives. Diaz apologised, saying she did not realise the slogan’s “potentially hurtful nature”.
In its heyday, the Shining Path was the most formidable rebel movement in Latin America. It controlled large areas of the countryside and also mounted attacks on the capital, Lima. This prompted fears at home and abroad of a full rebel takeover.
The violence began to wane after Shining Path leader Abimael Guzman was captured in 1992. After he called for a ceasefire, the organisation saw it membership plummet. By 1994, about 6,000 guerrillas had surrendered under a state amnesty programme.
Another guerrilla leader subsequently tried to revive the movement, but few adherents were energised. Following another government crackdown in 2004, the Shining Path lost the power to undermine the Peruvian state. The scars of the conflict endure in several ways.
How far Diaz’s apology for an ostensibly honest mistake goes towards assuaging Peruvians is something those most offended can best judge. For the rest of us, the episode underscores the care celebrities – even those with profoundly outspoken views – must take to respect the political sensitivities of others.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Bracing For Green Refugees
Need one more reason not to let the planet heat up any further? How about an influx of green refugees? The year so far has proved to be one of the most seminal in galvanising the climate change debate. United Nations experts came out with a report reinforcing the body of evidence holding humans complicit in causing global warming. This has inspired an energetic enquiry in what people could do to mitigate the effects of their actions.
From the high Himalayas to the deep seas, the specific impacts of rising temperatures have been explored. In traditionally sceptical parts of the world, public opinion has shifted dramatically and put greater pressure on governments to act. The growing intensity of the deliberations has prompted some advocates to warn of the negative fallout.
In recent weeks, the discussions are increasingly focusing on the extent of the displacement of people and entire communities climate change would precipitate within and across national boundaries. The growth of different categories of refugees has already overwhelmed the international system. This preoccupation has sometimes kept attention away from the plight of internally displaced people. Climate change – along with earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, floods, droughts and famines – threatens to compound this challenge several fold.
Experts predict that about 50 million people worldwide would be displaced by 2010 because of rising sea levels, desertification, dried up aquifers, weather-induced flooding and other serious environmental changes. Up to a billion people could be forced to leave their homes over the next 50 years, other studies warn. The farther the projections go into the future, the more serious the crisis seems to become.
Rising sea levels are expected to leave the most dramatic and visible effects. Yet communities living in coastal areas in least developed countries and small island developing states remain the most vulnerable. Lack of empowerment, representation and knowledge, among other things, has severely limited their access to support systems.
Environmental refugees, like victims of political upheavals or violence, require international commitments ensuring access to financial grants, food, tools, shelter, schools and clinics. Yet such refugees are not yet recognised in international conventions.
The world needs to move urgently on multiple fronts beginning with a legal definition of environmental refugees. Apart from mobilising financial, technical and material resources, governments, organisations and individuals need to raise awareness among the potential refugees. At least those who don't want to leave home would have enough to act on.
From the high Himalayas to the deep seas, the specific impacts of rising temperatures have been explored. In traditionally sceptical parts of the world, public opinion has shifted dramatically and put greater pressure on governments to act. The growing intensity of the deliberations has prompted some advocates to warn of the negative fallout.
In recent weeks, the discussions are increasingly focusing on the extent of the displacement of people and entire communities climate change would precipitate within and across national boundaries. The growth of different categories of refugees has already overwhelmed the international system. This preoccupation has sometimes kept attention away from the plight of internally displaced people. Climate change – along with earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, floods, droughts and famines – threatens to compound this challenge several fold.
Experts predict that about 50 million people worldwide would be displaced by 2010 because of rising sea levels, desertification, dried up aquifers, weather-induced flooding and other serious environmental changes. Up to a billion people could be forced to leave their homes over the next 50 years, other studies warn. The farther the projections go into the future, the more serious the crisis seems to become.
Rising sea levels are expected to leave the most dramatic and visible effects. Yet communities living in coastal areas in least developed countries and small island developing states remain the most vulnerable. Lack of empowerment, representation and knowledge, among other things, has severely limited their access to support systems.
Environmental refugees, like victims of political upheavals or violence, require international commitments ensuring access to financial grants, food, tools, shelter, schools and clinics. Yet such refugees are not yet recognised in international conventions.
The world needs to move urgently on multiple fronts beginning with a legal definition of environmental refugees. Apart from mobilising financial, technical and material resources, governments, organisations and individuals need to raise awareness among the potential refugees. At least those who don't want to leave home would have enough to act on.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
No Small Achievement, Surely
SMALL and getting bountiful. The possibility of manipulating materials at an incredibly small scale to improve almost every aspect of life continues to mesmerize experts and entrepreneurs alike. Global spending on nano-technology research is currently estimated to be $12 billion. By 2014, this industry could be worth $2.5 trillion, offering tools for improving health care, food production, electronics, energy output, transportation, and a variety of everyday needs.
At a basic level, nano-materials exploit unusual electrical, optical, and other properties because of the very precise way in which their atoms are arranged. The true extent of their application essentially remains unknown. This reality, aided by the creativity of science fiction writers, has spawned scary scenarios ranging from swarms of self-replicating robots devouring the planet to nano-sized biological particles moving into human bodies and wreaking havoc.
Dismissing such scare-mongering, most experts foresee remarkable advances in medicine. Nano-technology is expected to provide earlier and better diagnostics, while treatment would combine earlier and more precisely targeted drug delivery. Furthermore, the miniaturization of medical diagnostic and sensing tools could drive down costs of such kits for developing countries. Behind this rosy prognosis, however, governments are coming under increasing fire for failing to fund adequate research into the potential risks. A recent review conducted by Britain’s Council for Science and Technology found that not enough had been done to understand the possible environmental and health effects of nano-technology, especially in view of the growing number of products on the market containing these manufactured ultra-small materials.
Admittedly, the commercial viability of nano-technology, like any other novel venture, rests on its ability to maximize benefits as well as minimize risks. Focused research, bolstered by sustained funding, would provide manufacturers with sufficient knowledge to build safe products. Consumers, on the other hand, would be confident enough to espouse products and processes with such immense promise.
At a basic level, nano-materials exploit unusual electrical, optical, and other properties because of the very precise way in which their atoms are arranged. The true extent of their application essentially remains unknown. This reality, aided by the creativity of science fiction writers, has spawned scary scenarios ranging from swarms of self-replicating robots devouring the planet to nano-sized biological particles moving into human bodies and wreaking havoc.
Dismissing such scare-mongering, most experts foresee remarkable advances in medicine. Nano-technology is expected to provide earlier and better diagnostics, while treatment would combine earlier and more precisely targeted drug delivery. Furthermore, the miniaturization of medical diagnostic and sensing tools could drive down costs of such kits for developing countries. Behind this rosy prognosis, however, governments are coming under increasing fire for failing to fund adequate research into the potential risks. A recent review conducted by Britain’s Council for Science and Technology found that not enough had been done to understand the possible environmental and health effects of nano-technology, especially in view of the growing number of products on the market containing these manufactured ultra-small materials.
Admittedly, the commercial viability of nano-technology, like any other novel venture, rests on its ability to maximize benefits as well as minimize risks. Focused research, bolstered by sustained funding, would provide manufacturers with sufficient knowledge to build safe products. Consumers, on the other hand, would be confident enough to espouse products and processes with such immense promise.
Friday, April 27, 2007
The Graying Of The World
THE latest projections on international population patterns make a compelling case for concerted action to meet the challenges posed by ageing in developed as well as developing nations. By 2005, according to a recent United Nations report, the planet's population is expected to cross the nine billion mark from the current 6.7 billion.
That the bulk of the 2.5 billion increase would take place in the developing world is hardly news. What is new is the urgency the United Nations attaches to the graying of the developing world and to appropriate and timely policy interventions.
A rise in the number of men and women aged 60 years or over is expected to comprise half of the world's population growth by 2050. In developed countries, where fertility has been declining amid improved life expectancy, 20 per cent of the population is already over 60. The proportion is projected to rise to 33 per cent by 2050. In several of these countries, senior citizens already outnumber children.
The perceptible shift in demographic patterns has led governments to review economic and social policies that have worked well for decades. Health care, pensions, and social services that traditionally depended on tax contributions of a younger work force are no longer considered so viable. Many countries are introducing family friendly policies to make careers and parenthood more compatible. Others are exploring the politically charged option of inviting temporary or seasonal skilled and unskilled workers.
The onset of ageing is comparatively slow in developing countries, where eight per cent of the population is 60 years or older. The United Nations estimates that the number of children in the developing world - currently about two billion - would remain intact until the middle of the century. Much of the focus of governments thus continues to fall on education, health care, and social services for the young.
By 2050, in terms of aging, Asian, Latin American and Caribbean nations would be in the position Europe and North America are today. The challenge for governments in the developing world to come up with the requisite vision and commitment therefore becomes doubly daunting.
That the bulk of the 2.5 billion increase would take place in the developing world is hardly news. What is new is the urgency the United Nations attaches to the graying of the developing world and to appropriate and timely policy interventions.
A rise in the number of men and women aged 60 years or over is expected to comprise half of the world's population growth by 2050. In developed countries, where fertility has been declining amid improved life expectancy, 20 per cent of the population is already over 60. The proportion is projected to rise to 33 per cent by 2050. In several of these countries, senior citizens already outnumber children.
The perceptible shift in demographic patterns has led governments to review economic and social policies that have worked well for decades. Health care, pensions, and social services that traditionally depended on tax contributions of a younger work force are no longer considered so viable. Many countries are introducing family friendly policies to make careers and parenthood more compatible. Others are exploring the politically charged option of inviting temporary or seasonal skilled and unskilled workers.
The onset of ageing is comparatively slow in developing countries, where eight per cent of the population is 60 years or older. The United Nations estimates that the number of children in the developing world - currently about two billion - would remain intact until the middle of the century. Much of the focus of governments thus continues to fall on education, health care, and social services for the young.
By 2050, in terms of aging, Asian, Latin American and Caribbean nations would be in the position Europe and North America are today. The challenge for governments in the developing world to come up with the requisite vision and commitment therefore becomes doubly daunting.
Monday, April 23, 2007
A Rare Bright Spot Along Pennsylvania Ave.
With each week, the prospect of a divided government is looming larger in the United States, after Democrats took control of both houses of Congress in January. From the war in Iraq to oversight of the White House, Congress is in a robust mood for action. Yet one important issue is likely to draw the White House and Capitol Hill closer: immigration.
Now that Senator Edward M. Kennedy sees the Bush plan, unveiled by the president in Arizona earlier this month, as “encouraging,” the logjam can be expected to be broken.
An ardent supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, President George W. Bush had sought to address the issue early in his first term by, among other things, instituting a “guest worker” program and securing US borders. However, the 9/11 attacks shifted the nation’s focus and resources. Two years ago, when Bush revived his effort to regularize the 12 million illegal immigrants that run US farms, factories and other key sectors, he ran into strong opposition from his own Republican Party. They wanted Bush to construct a fence along the border with Mexico first.
A nation of immigrants, America’s views on the subject traditionally has been influenced by the economic cycle. When unemployment is low and voters feel they are doing well, immigration recedes in importance as a political issue. At around four per cent, unemployment in the United States remains lower than in many industrialized nations. Yet the decline in the quality of jobs available has changed perceptions. Traditional manufacturing jobs have been either outsourced or made redundant by technological advances. Those being created tend to pay less in terms of wages and benefits. Businesses claim they are forced to employ illegal immigrants because Americans are not available or willing to perform those jobs. A skeptical public sees this as an excuse to suppress wages.
Before last November’s congressional elections, Bush signed into law a measure aimed at fencing part of the Mexican border, but that did not help his party. The victorious Democrats insist that reform must address the reality that illegal foreign workers are key to many sectors of the economy. They support a path to legal residency and eventual citizenship for illegal immigrants who meet strict conditions, such as learning English and paying fines and back taxes. In a highly polarized political environment, the promise of bipartisanship on even one vital national issue does offer some reassurance.
Now that Senator Edward M. Kennedy sees the Bush plan, unveiled by the president in Arizona earlier this month, as “encouraging,” the logjam can be expected to be broken.
An ardent supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, President George W. Bush had sought to address the issue early in his first term by, among other things, instituting a “guest worker” program and securing US borders. However, the 9/11 attacks shifted the nation’s focus and resources. Two years ago, when Bush revived his effort to regularize the 12 million illegal immigrants that run US farms, factories and other key sectors, he ran into strong opposition from his own Republican Party. They wanted Bush to construct a fence along the border with Mexico first.
A nation of immigrants, America’s views on the subject traditionally has been influenced by the economic cycle. When unemployment is low and voters feel they are doing well, immigration recedes in importance as a political issue. At around four per cent, unemployment in the United States remains lower than in many industrialized nations. Yet the decline in the quality of jobs available has changed perceptions. Traditional manufacturing jobs have been either outsourced or made redundant by technological advances. Those being created tend to pay less in terms of wages and benefits. Businesses claim they are forced to employ illegal immigrants because Americans are not available or willing to perform those jobs. A skeptical public sees this as an excuse to suppress wages.
Before last November’s congressional elections, Bush signed into law a measure aimed at fencing part of the Mexican border, but that did not help his party. The victorious Democrats insist that reform must address the reality that illegal foreign workers are key to many sectors of the economy. They support a path to legal residency and eventual citizenship for illegal immigrants who meet strict conditions, such as learning English and paying fines and back taxes. In a highly polarized political environment, the promise of bipartisanship on even one vital national issue does offer some reassurance.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Buying The Best And Brightest?
THE average earnings of top company executives in Britain are a record 98 times more than those of a typical employee. Since 2000, the earnings of FTSE 100 chief executives had grown 102.2 per cent while the average employee had seen their pay rise 28.6 per cent in that period, new research shows. Admittedly, such disparities mean little to those who believe talent, amid today’s cutthroat competition, should be rewarded above all else.
Caps are worth considering, their argument goes, only if brilliance could be clearly quantified. Britain is not quite in the league of the United States, where the average CEO earned 821 times as much as a minimum wage worker last year. Yet the British have been steadily climbing the compensation ladder; ten years ago, the pay differential was 39:1.
With corporations around the world scrambling to recruit and retain the best and the brightest, how far do pay differentials go towards improving performance? The answer would obviously vary with corporate balance sheets. Few shareholders would begrudge the idea of compensating exceptional executives as long as profit margins remain impressive. Outside the boardroom, the celebrity status of some CEOs is truly astounding. Yet envy among ordinary people tends to dissipate once the volatility of the job becomes more apparent. A series of successful years could suddenly collide with a set of variables outside the control of the chief executive. For every corporate boss destroyed by greed and graft, upright ones simply succumb to circumstances.
Gone are the days when top corporations were associated with lifelong job security. Some employees displaced by harsh business environment can still expect a respectable exit. They soon discover that ‘golden handshakes’ do not glitter. The scandals surrounding Enron, Worldcom and other organisations have tarnished the image of big business and precipitated sporadic reforms. The compensation conundrum becomes starker when companies seem capable of continuing to pay astronomical bonuses while cutting back on employee health benefits and other perks if not perpetrating massive layoffs. The rush to boost corporate performance through lucrative compensation packages alone must not obscure the other precious commodity that continues to sustain organisations: employee morale.
Caps are worth considering, their argument goes, only if brilliance could be clearly quantified. Britain is not quite in the league of the United States, where the average CEO earned 821 times as much as a minimum wage worker last year. Yet the British have been steadily climbing the compensation ladder; ten years ago, the pay differential was 39:1.
With corporations around the world scrambling to recruit and retain the best and the brightest, how far do pay differentials go towards improving performance? The answer would obviously vary with corporate balance sheets. Few shareholders would begrudge the idea of compensating exceptional executives as long as profit margins remain impressive. Outside the boardroom, the celebrity status of some CEOs is truly astounding. Yet envy among ordinary people tends to dissipate once the volatility of the job becomes more apparent. A series of successful years could suddenly collide with a set of variables outside the control of the chief executive. For every corporate boss destroyed by greed and graft, upright ones simply succumb to circumstances.
Gone are the days when top corporations were associated with lifelong job security. Some employees displaced by harsh business environment can still expect a respectable exit. They soon discover that ‘golden handshakes’ do not glitter. The scandals surrounding Enron, Worldcom and other organisations have tarnished the image of big business and precipitated sporadic reforms. The compensation conundrum becomes starker when companies seem capable of continuing to pay astronomical bonuses while cutting back on employee health benefits and other perks if not perpetrating massive layoffs. The rush to boost corporate performance through lucrative compensation packages alone must not obscure the other precious commodity that continues to sustain organisations: employee morale.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Let’s Sleep On It
It took elderly mice to suggest that jetlag or working irregular shifts could damage health. The scientific community is not about to lose sleep over the recent finding. But what about the rest of us?
Researchers from theUniversity of Virginia
Younger animals appeared unaffected by alterations to their schedule. Writing in the journal Current Biology, the American researchers concluded that the results raised concerns for humans affected by time disruption. As more and more people find themselves living in 24-hour societies or traveling across several time zones, the study becomes highly relevant.
Over the years, everything from decline in productivity to inter-personal conflicts at the workplace have been blamed on disrupted sleep patterns and the resulting fatigue. Some experts now may be tempted to factor in the latest findings in their macroeconomic calculations and observations of cultural dynamics. Each new study tends to create new uncertainties concerning attitudes and behavior. Should people stop all but essential long-distance travel or should those working the night shift demand regular hours backed by the threat of resignation?
Not so fast, according to an expert in physiology and biochemistry at theUniversity of Surrey
Of course, this work was carried out on mice, who are nocturnal animals, while humans are diurnal. Still, let’s sleep on it.
Researchers from the
Younger animals appeared unaffected by alterations to their schedule. Writing in the journal Current Biology, the American researchers concluded that the results raised concerns for humans affected by time disruption. As more and more people find themselves living in 24-hour societies or traveling across several time zones, the study becomes highly relevant.
Over the years, everything from decline in productivity to inter-personal conflicts at the workplace have been blamed on disrupted sleep patterns and the resulting fatigue. Some experts now may be tempted to factor in the latest findings in their macroeconomic calculations and observations of cultural dynamics. Each new study tends to create new uncertainties concerning attitudes and behavior. Should people stop all but essential long-distance travel or should those working the night shift demand regular hours backed by the threat of resignation?
Not so fast, according to an expert in physiology and biochemistry at the
Of course, this work was carried out on mice, who are nocturnal animals, while humans are diurnal. Still, let’s sleep on it.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Halliburton’s Orange Juice Dividend
Now that the Americans and Iranians have sat down on the same table for the first time since the Shah’s overthrow 30 years ago, expectations of an orange juice dividend have soared. The breadth of the Baghdad conference was designed to create the atmospherics so that both sides could calibrate their sips with their semantics.
Is it too much to expect a moderating influence on Iraq? Probably not. The moment Saudi King Abdullah played peace-broker between Hamas and Fatah, Iranian President Mahmud Ahmedinejad was itching to fortify the other Muslim flank. Now we have the Shia and Sunni patriarchs in full play. Al Qaeda No. 2 Ayman Al Zawahiri had to step in with his audio message. No wonder Halliburton feels safe enough to relocate its headquarters to Dubai.
The game may have just begun. The Saudis and Iranians aren’t about to squander this chance at regional supremacy. With King Abdullah locked in his own battle with Al Qaeda, a resurgence of Shia power in Iraq is the last thing he needs. Ahmedinejad won’t countenance losing that influence so painstakingly built in Iraq. With Saddam gone, the more ex-Baathists have a good chance of returning to some level of influence if they can fully and verifiably prove their ability to restrain – if not end – their part of the insurgency. Compromise is everyone’s compulsion. It’s probably the prospect of some sanity entering the region – and not the urgency to avoid congressional subpoenas – that led Halliburton to decide to relocate its headquarters to that tiny patch of opulence between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Is it too much to expect a moderating influence on Iraq? Probably not. The moment Saudi King Abdullah played peace-broker between Hamas and Fatah, Iranian President Mahmud Ahmedinejad was itching to fortify the other Muslim flank. Now we have the Shia and Sunni patriarchs in full play. Al Qaeda No. 2 Ayman Al Zawahiri had to step in with his audio message. No wonder Halliburton feels safe enough to relocate its headquarters to Dubai.
The game may have just begun. The Saudis and Iranians aren’t about to squander this chance at regional supremacy. With King Abdullah locked in his own battle with Al Qaeda, a resurgence of Shia power in Iraq is the last thing he needs. Ahmedinejad won’t countenance losing that influence so painstakingly built in Iraq. With Saddam gone, the more ex-Baathists have a good chance of returning to some level of influence if they can fully and verifiably prove their ability to restrain – if not end – their part of the insurgency. Compromise is everyone’s compulsion. It’s probably the prospect of some sanity entering the region – and not the urgency to avoid congressional subpoenas – that led Halliburton to decide to relocate its headquarters to that tiny patch of opulence between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
U.S. Surge Aimed At Iran
It looks like the Bush administration has lost trust in all Iraqi Shiites. At least that’s what U.S. troops have shown by detaining the son of top Iraqi Shiite politician Abdel Aziz al-Hakim on Feb. 23 as he was returning from Iran.
The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the elder Hakim’s organization, is an ally of the United States. By most accounts, it is also the most pro-Iranian of all Iraqi Shiite factions. It also has an allied militia called the Badr Organization, thought to be Iran’s main proxy in Iraq.
Ammar al-Hakim, a senior leader of SCIRI and the secretary-general of a charitable foundation the group runs, was returning from Iran via the Badrah border crossing in the southeastern governorate of Wasit. U.S. sources believe Ammar is involved in transferring money and weapons on behalf of Iran to Iraqi Shia. Moreover, he could also be spying on the United States.
In any case, Ammar’s arrest underscores the strain that seems to have set in relations between the Bush administration and its closest Iraqi Shiite ally. So far, American forces have gone after the radical al-Sadrite Bloc and its armed wing, the Mehdi Army.
An escalation of this crisis could shove SCIRI further into the Iranian camp. Furthermore, it could spur an alignment of anti-U.S. Shiite groups that have been fighting against each other.
Vice President Dick Cheney’s comments in Australia provide another insight into what could be happening. By drawing Iran closer into the Iraq conflict, could the Bush administration be intending to expose the ruling mullahs to wrath of Iraqi Sunnis? With the Iranians caught in their own Iraqi quagmire, maybe that full-blown U.S. attack on Iran might not be needed. Bush’s surge may be intended for Iran.
The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the elder Hakim’s organization, is an ally of the United States. By most accounts, it is also the most pro-Iranian of all Iraqi Shiite factions. It also has an allied militia called the Badr Organization, thought to be Iran’s main proxy in Iraq.
Ammar al-Hakim, a senior leader of SCIRI and the secretary-general of a charitable foundation the group runs, was returning from Iran via the Badrah border crossing in the southeastern governorate of Wasit. U.S. sources believe Ammar is involved in transferring money and weapons on behalf of Iran to Iraqi Shia. Moreover, he could also be spying on the United States.
In any case, Ammar’s arrest underscores the strain that seems to have set in relations between the Bush administration and its closest Iraqi Shiite ally. So far, American forces have gone after the radical al-Sadrite Bloc and its armed wing, the Mehdi Army.
An escalation of this crisis could shove SCIRI further into the Iranian camp. Furthermore, it could spur an alignment of anti-U.S. Shiite groups that have been fighting against each other.
Vice President Dick Cheney’s comments in Australia provide another insight into what could be happening. By drawing Iran closer into the Iraq conflict, could the Bush administration be intending to expose the ruling mullahs to wrath of Iraqi Sunnis? With the Iranians caught in their own Iraqi quagmire, maybe that full-blown U.S. attack on Iran might not be needed. Bush’s surge may be intended for Iran.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
The Tories’ Blair
Is David Cameron going to be Britain’s new savior? That’s what one opinion poll seems to show. Cameron, who was elected 14 months ago to lead the Tories out of a long-standing inertia, has performed reasonably well relative to his bumbling predecessors. More importantly, he has revived the image of the Conservatives, who never seemed to have the capacity to gain from Labour’s progressive decline.
An opinion poll conducted by the Guardian newspaper shows Cameron winning 42 percent support for the post of prime minister against 29 percent by Labour’s Gordon Brown.
Tony Blair’s designated successor doesn’t seem to be able to distance himself from the current government’s performance. With Blair taking his long farewell, moreover, Brown might not have enough time to emerge as his own man in time in time for the next elections.
The Tories, over the past decade, have found themselves where Labour was during the Thatcher-Major years. Until, of course, Blair came around. It might be premature to equate today’s Cameron with the Blair of 1997, but you get the idea.
The Conservatives’ 13-point lead over Labour, in the Guardian poll, represents their highest since their 1992 victory. For now, let this piece of statistic tell its story.
An opinion poll conducted by the Guardian newspaper shows Cameron winning 42 percent support for the post of prime minister against 29 percent by Labour’s Gordon Brown.
Tony Blair’s designated successor doesn’t seem to be able to distance himself from the current government’s performance. With Blair taking his long farewell, moreover, Brown might not have enough time to emerge as his own man in time in time for the next elections.
The Tories, over the past decade, have found themselves where Labour was during the Thatcher-Major years. Until, of course, Blair came around. It might be premature to equate today’s Cameron with the Blair of 1997, but you get the idea.
The Conservatives’ 13-point lead over Labour, in the Guardian poll, represents their highest since their 1992 victory. For now, let this piece of statistic tell its story.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
A New Holy Roman Empire?
With the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome approaching, the European Union is once again revved up by the idea of a formal constitution.
A union of some of the world’s most powerful and industrialized nations, the EU is integrating with the rest of the world economically and politically. In coming this far, the union has shed a lot of the continent’s history of carnage and convulsions. It is worth recalling that a key propellant of the Rome Treaty was the urgency to stop Europe’s internecine wars.
A common market, free trade area, open borders are but aspects of integration. A full-fledged constitution would formalize the quest for commonness gripping the continent as well as the aspirations of quarters beyond.
Eighteen of the 27 member states have ratified the draft constitution. Britain, the Czech Republic and Poland want a new, slimmed-down mini treaty. French and Dutch voters have altogether rejected it in referendums held over a year ago.
Creating a permanent president and foreign ministry, the logical culmination of full union, would be as arduous as working out the precise schedule for the entry of Turkey as a member.
Less palpable, though, is the suspicion that the European project is some kind of Catholic conspiracy. After all, four of the six original countries were mainly Catholic and most of the founding fathers were devout believers. Furthermore, European Christian Democracy is rooted in Catholicism. It is perhaps no accident that Catholic newcomers such as Spain and Portugal have found it easier to adapt to the EU than have Protestant members such as Britain or Sweden.
A union of some of the world’s most powerful and industrialized nations, the EU is integrating with the rest of the world economically and politically. In coming this far, the union has shed a lot of the continent’s history of carnage and convulsions. It is worth recalling that a key propellant of the Rome Treaty was the urgency to stop Europe’s internecine wars.
A common market, free trade area, open borders are but aspects of integration. A full-fledged constitution would formalize the quest for commonness gripping the continent as well as the aspirations of quarters beyond.
Eighteen of the 27 member states have ratified the draft constitution. Britain, the Czech Republic and Poland want a new, slimmed-down mini treaty. French and Dutch voters have altogether rejected it in referendums held over a year ago.
Creating a permanent president and foreign ministry, the logical culmination of full union, would be as arduous as working out the precise schedule for the entry of Turkey as a member.
Less palpable, though, is the suspicion that the European project is some kind of Catholic conspiracy. After all, four of the six original countries were mainly Catholic and most of the founding fathers were devout believers. Furthermore, European Christian Democracy is rooted in Catholicism. It is perhaps no accident that Catholic newcomers such as Spain and Portugal have found it easier to adapt to the EU than have Protestant members such as Britain or Sweden.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
National Sovereignty: Sacrosanct Again?
The Chinese and Russians have put the world on notice. Domestic denial of democracy and human rights is not a threat to international peace and security. So the U.N. Security Council had better stay out of Myanmar.
What business did the United States have pushing through a resolution it knew it couldn’t back up – diplomatically or militarily? John Bolton’s departure as ambassador deprived Washington the ability to even mount an effective rhetorical defense.
For the first time since the 1970s, Beijing and Moscow have forged a front to challenge the United States. They didn’t unite so audaciously before the resolutions preceding the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq four years ago. China, for its part, had begun abstaining from key votes, exhibiting a pragmatism that allowed others to interpret in their own ways. The Russians, never shy about projecting their national interests over international questions, saw the veto as one of the last remaining symbol of their superpower status and were determined to use it.
Why Myanmar?
Ever since the military junta in Yangon invalidated Aung San Suu Kyi’s massive electoral victory and threw her into jail, the world has been able to do little else than stand by. China, a key ally, provided diplomatic cover.
Myanmar’s neighbors in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, no great models of democracy themselves, were fed up with American lectures on morality. They granted Myanmar membership of the regional organization and cushioned the regime from international pressures.
The Nobel Peace Price didn’t get Suu Kyi anywhere. The vast reserves of natural gas have made the junta the darling of China and India. Had New Delhi gotten that vaunted Security Council privilege, it might have vetoed the U.S. resolution too.
Admittedly, the Russians and Chinese could defend Myanmar so openly because there was little cost in doing so. The United States wasn’t about to severe ties with Moscow or Beijing over that Asian outpost. Nor could Washington be expected to ignore the Security Council and launch a military expedition to turn Myanmar into a beacon of democracy and human rights.
Yet it would be wrong to consider the Sino-Russian alliance as an aberration. The two governments are the staunchest defenders of national sovereignty, for their own reasons. Neither wants U.N. missions in Tibet or Chechnya.
In building this façade of virtue, Beijing and Moscow have read the American public’s mood very well. After the Iraq debacle, democracy and human rights are extremely unlikely to rouse Americans into any form international intervention. Let there be no mistake, this reaffirmation of the sanctity of national sovereignty was carefully planned.
What business did the United States have pushing through a resolution it knew it couldn’t back up – diplomatically or militarily? John Bolton’s departure as ambassador deprived Washington the ability to even mount an effective rhetorical defense.
For the first time since the 1970s, Beijing and Moscow have forged a front to challenge the United States. They didn’t unite so audaciously before the resolutions preceding the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq four years ago. China, for its part, had begun abstaining from key votes, exhibiting a pragmatism that allowed others to interpret in their own ways. The Russians, never shy about projecting their national interests over international questions, saw the veto as one of the last remaining symbol of their superpower status and were determined to use it.
Why Myanmar?
Ever since the military junta in Yangon invalidated Aung San Suu Kyi’s massive electoral victory and threw her into jail, the world has been able to do little else than stand by. China, a key ally, provided diplomatic cover.
Myanmar’s neighbors in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, no great models of democracy themselves, were fed up with American lectures on morality. They granted Myanmar membership of the regional organization and cushioned the regime from international pressures.
The Nobel Peace Price didn’t get Suu Kyi anywhere. The vast reserves of natural gas have made the junta the darling of China and India. Had New Delhi gotten that vaunted Security Council privilege, it might have vetoed the U.S. resolution too.
Admittedly, the Russians and Chinese could defend Myanmar so openly because there was little cost in doing so. The United States wasn’t about to severe ties with Moscow or Beijing over that Asian outpost. Nor could Washington be expected to ignore the Security Council and launch a military expedition to turn Myanmar into a beacon of democracy and human rights.
Yet it would be wrong to consider the Sino-Russian alliance as an aberration. The two governments are the staunchest defenders of national sovereignty, for their own reasons. Neither wants U.N. missions in Tibet or Chechnya.
In building this façade of virtue, Beijing and Moscow have read the American public’s mood very well. After the Iraq debacle, democracy and human rights are extremely unlikely to rouse Americans into any form international intervention. Let there be no mistake, this reaffirmation of the sanctity of national sovereignty was carefully planned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)