Everyone has their theory about the London bombings, which killed over 50 people and injured some 700. We’ve all read them: it’s Al-Qaeda, home-grown British fanatics, revenge for British involvement in Iraq, and even those who think it is a response to London winning the 2012 Olympics. But more than anything the situation is starting to sound like a James Bond film. If Bush and Blair are to be believed, the cause of the terror is an evil genius who seeks world domination and wants to change civilised people’s way of life – whatever that means. Those responsible for the carnage in London, or in Madrid, Bali and New York, suffer from the same grandiose thinking. They think that murdering people across the globe will alter international relations and further their ideology – whatever that is. But the problem with both these views is they draw us into generalised thinking that only makes things worse.
This is not a movie that will have a neat ending. The number of deaths committed in the name of justice, no matter how it is defined, has real consequences. That said, the Western media seems more concerned about the deaths of British or American civilians than Iraqi or Afghan civilians killed by allied troops. But bombing commuters or killing civilians in illegally occupied countries are both wrong. One is not morally superior to the other. Both are abhorrent. Revenge as a solution only works in the movies. The enemy will not be beaten into submission in a swashbuckling finale, and no one is going to live happily ever after. Thinking that a global war can defeat terror or, conversely, that global terror can win the day, will only intensify the problem. One-dimensional views are everywhere. Some commentators want us to believe that poverty is the sole cause of acts of terror and the US is the root of all that is bad. Western politicians want us to think the driving force behind the bombers is ideologically vacuous and pure evil. Others argue that withdrawing troops from Iraq, as much as I am for that, will make it all go away. But the situation is more nuanced than that. There is no military solution to this problem. There is no simple answer.
Let us pull back from our grand theories and stop pontificating. Those who kill indiscriminately must be brought to justice, but we need to understand what is going on here. If the perpetrators of the London bombings are found to be Al-Qaeda fundamentalists, what is needed is knowledge from those that can fully articulate the root causes of what we are seeing. This can only come through closer alliances with Muslim countries and communities. But how is this possible if Muslim countries are not even invited to the G8 talks? How can we understand different perspectives if everyone is continually emphasising difference rather than commonality between cultures? It is not going to be possible to have an informed debate about causes and prevention as long as all sides engage in the polemic of good and evil. Now is not the time to hand over more power to the military and secret services – the same people who apparently miscalculated regarding Saddam’s weapons cache. Insights and guidance from those closest to the heart of the problem must be sought. It is the diplomats and those who can open the channels of communication and listen to one another that are needed, not more soldiers.
This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 29 July 2005 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.
Friday, July 29, 2005
IRA ends armed campaign
Yesterday, as most people know, the IRA leadership ordered members to stop the armed campaign. Read the full statement by clicking here.
Thursday, July 7, 2005
Let's stop moralising about corruption in Africa
The big debate in the UK and Ireland at the moment is whether debt relief will help Africa, given that many African governments are corrupt. President Mbeki’s recent move to axe Deputy President Zuma because of a ‘generally corrupt relationship’ with Schabir Shaik, a Durban businessman sentenced to 15 years for corruption and fraud, seems to have offered a rebuttal. The Western world has declared its support for Mbeki’s approach, emphasising how he has set an example for the rest of Africa. To some degree, he has, but what is annoying is that everyone seems so surprised that an African leader would take such a step. Granted, many African countries are appallingly corrupt, but Mbeki is a world leader, not only an African leader. Making bold inferences about the importance of his actions for the rest of Africa reinforces the idea that somehow Mbeki is an exceptional black man and that Africans are somehow endemically corrupt or incapable of simply doing the right thing. We would all do well to remember that Mbeki’s actions set a precedent the world over and not only for Africa. Mbeki is also not alone. A recent anticorruption campaign in Nigeria has resulted in the firing of several senior officials. The Kenyan government is allegedly investigating 18 officials highlighted in a British government dossier. This is not to say Africa does not have a serious problem with corruption or that a dash of scepticism about recent anticorruption initiatives would go amiss. Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index confirms that 18 of the 50 most corrupt nations are in Africa. Corruption has damaged investment and poverty-relief efforts. According to the World Bank, widespread corruption can cause the growth rate of a country to be 0,5 to 1,0 percentage points lower than that of a similar country with little corruption. But no country has the moral high ground on this issue. Transparency International points out that corrupt international business transactions involve both those who take and those who give. According to the 1997 United Nations World Development Report, 15% of all companies in industrialised countries have to pay bribes to win or retain business. All countries also have their corruption scandals. Tax evasion from the small scale to the grand is the corrupt vice of many wealthy people.
From a cynical perspective, if Zuma was in Tony Blair’s Cabinet he probably would have jumped before he was pushed. A well-timed resignation, perhaps when allegations about Shaik first emerged, may well have saved his skin, just as it has for ministers in the Blair Cabinet implicated in various scandals. Once the storm has passed, Blair has a tendency to reinstate ministers suspected of wrongdoing.
Of course, just because everyone is doing it does not let Africa off the hook, and the problem is dramatically worse in parts of the African continent than elsewhere. But in every society, as Transparency International points out, there are those who try to ‘beat the system’ and, if the system is vulnerable, there will be more of them. For Transparency International, the issue is not one of ‘moral superiority’, but developing the ability to control the menace. The debate on corruption must move beyond proselytising about corruption and Africa, as if they are synonymous. The result is that the continent as a whole is treated dismissively, rather than nuanced solutions for each unique country context being sought. So let us stop the moralising about Africa and its leadership and find ways to join the battle.
This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 7 July 2005 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.
From a cynical perspective, if Zuma was in Tony Blair’s Cabinet he probably would have jumped before he was pushed. A well-timed resignation, perhaps when allegations about Shaik first emerged, may well have saved his skin, just as it has for ministers in the Blair Cabinet implicated in various scandals. Once the storm has passed, Blair has a tendency to reinstate ministers suspected of wrongdoing.
Of course, just because everyone is doing it does not let Africa off the hook, and the problem is dramatically worse in parts of the African continent than elsewhere. But in every society, as Transparency International points out, there are those who try to ‘beat the system’ and, if the system is vulnerable, there will be more of them. For Transparency International, the issue is not one of ‘moral superiority’, but developing the ability to control the menace. The debate on corruption must move beyond proselytising about corruption and Africa, as if they are synonymous. The result is that the continent as a whole is treated dismissively, rather than nuanced solutions for each unique country context being sought. So let us stop the moralising about Africa and its leadership and find ways to join the battle.
This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 7 July 2005 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.
Friday, June 24, 2005
In my day, young people had respect
Sometimes I feel the world is stuck in a time warp. Every time I open a UK or Irish newspaper someone is complaining about the so-called wayward youth of today. Typical complaints include a lack of respect by young people for social norms, excessive drinking and a penchant for violence and vandalism. Recently, I scanned a copy of the UK Sunday Times and was overwhelmed by the range of articles focusing on so-called solutions to the perceived rise in antisocial behaviour.
One article focused on a government report apparently recommending targeting potential criminals from the age of three. Another blamed violent 'sheroes' such as Uma Thurman in Tarantino's film Kill Bill for influencing thuggery by girls. Yet another considered reinstating harsh boot-camp-style reformatories to bring young offenders into line. There seems to be a growing trend towards seeing the solution to troublesome youth as being about tougher policing and tighter control. This is typified in the UK by the introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs). These are civil orders made against those involved in continual antisocial behaviour. They can result in a person being banned from a specific area or associating with named persons.
A recent MORI poll found that 89% of the public support them. It is no wonder the Council of Europe's human rights commissioner suggested that the UK was suffering from 'Asbomania'. But is antisocial behaviour really sweeping the nation? A recent King's College London study found that antisocial behaviour by young people has little or no effect on the quality of life of the majority of the population. That said, one in five people surveyed felt they were affected. These problems, mainly associated with rowdy teenagers in the street, were described as acute and were highest in areas of social deprivation and inner cities. So the problem is not as bad as the media would have us believe, although, if you are affected, it can be deeply unpleasant and, like most unsavoury phenomena, mainly affects the poor. I wonder if every generation feels the youth are out of control. Think of the hippies of the 1960s, punks in the 1970s, skinheads in the 1980s or, in the 1990s, rappers and Pantsulas in South Africa.
Somewhere I read that, after you lose your membership in it, the younger generation invariably seems pretty bad. Is the older generation in Europe, who are wealthier and more comfortable than ever before, simply out of touch? I know I certainly am. When I see groups of young people on the street drinking and chatting, I no longer know what they talk about or what worries them. We should ask this basic question first before passing judgement. I think this is as true in the UK as it is in South Africa.
Criminalising young people is not helpful. Only 39% of people in the UK feel ASBOs are effective, even though they support their use. Talking about young people, especially black youth, as is often the case in South Africa and elsewhere, as if they are a bunch of criminals in training is hardly useful.
Let us take one step back and diagnose problems properly and build solutions on that. Out-of-control youth do not cause social degeneration, but economic and social degeneration can create out-of-control youth.
One article focused on a government report apparently recommending targeting potential criminals from the age of three. Another blamed violent 'sheroes' such as Uma Thurman in Tarantino's film Kill Bill for influencing thuggery by girls. Yet another considered reinstating harsh boot-camp-style reformatories to bring young offenders into line. There seems to be a growing trend towards seeing the solution to troublesome youth as being about tougher policing and tighter control. This is typified in the UK by the introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs). These are civil orders made against those involved in continual antisocial behaviour. They can result in a person being banned from a specific area or associating with named persons.
A recent MORI poll found that 89% of the public support them. It is no wonder the Council of Europe's human rights commissioner suggested that the UK was suffering from 'Asbomania'. But is antisocial behaviour really sweeping the nation? A recent King's College London study found that antisocial behaviour by young people has little or no effect on the quality of life of the majority of the population. That said, one in five people surveyed felt they were affected. These problems, mainly associated with rowdy teenagers in the street, were described as acute and were highest in areas of social deprivation and inner cities. So the problem is not as bad as the media would have us believe, although, if you are affected, it can be deeply unpleasant and, like most unsavoury phenomena, mainly affects the poor. I wonder if every generation feels the youth are out of control. Think of the hippies of the 1960s, punks in the 1970s, skinheads in the 1980s or, in the 1990s, rappers and Pantsulas in South Africa.
Somewhere I read that, after you lose your membership in it, the younger generation invariably seems pretty bad. Is the older generation in Europe, who are wealthier and more comfortable than ever before, simply out of touch? I know I certainly am. When I see groups of young people on the street drinking and chatting, I no longer know what they talk about or what worries them. We should ask this basic question first before passing judgement. I think this is as true in the UK as it is in South Africa.
Criminalising young people is not helpful. Only 39% of people in the UK feel ASBOs are effective, even though they support their use. Talking about young people, especially black youth, as is often the case in South Africa and elsewhere, as if they are a bunch of criminals in training is hardly useful.
Let us take one step back and diagnose problems properly and build solutions on that. Out-of-control youth do not cause social degeneration, but economic and social degeneration can create out-of-control youth.
If we know anything about young people it is that continual prohibition by adults leads to resistance. If things continue the way they are, very soon having an ASBO or criminal record will be as fashionable as having the latest mobile phone.
This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 24 June 2005 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Political Apologies and Reparations Website
A new website has been launched focusing on political apologies, which those responsible for the site at Wilfrid Laurier University, define broadly as apologies by a political or social entity (governments, religious organizations, or other bodies) for events that have harmed identifiable groups. To visit this interesting site click here.
Friday, June 10, 2005
Warning - this article may contain nuts
Despite the incessant rain, apparently, the summer has begun in the UK and Ireland. People are flocking to the stores to rekindle their passion for the braai, or barbecue, as it is known in northern climes. Recently, I decided to join them and bought a new braai. It came wrapped in plastic with a cardboard picture on the front of the self-same braai garnished with some sizzling steaks. Below the picture was a range of warnings. The first stated that the plastic wrapping should be disposed of carefully, as it may be dangerous to children: fair enough. But underneath, a further message read: "Warning – food not included". How many people have actually returned the braai to the shop complaining the steaks on the picture were absent from the package?
This is an excellent, albeit idiotic, demonstration of what is known as the compensation culture. If a warning or disclaimer is not present on a product then all sorts of legal avenues for compensation are left wide open. Many fear that a US-style litigation system, where you can sue for just about anything, is developing in Europe.
But this is a complicated issue. The British government's Better Regulation Task Force feels that the notion of a compensation culture in the UK is a myth. The UK is nowhere close to the US, and accident claims for injuries, for example, are dropping rather than increasing. Some companies have an interest in increasing the hype around the so-called compensation culture, as it can potentially discourage claims. Some may even try to use it as an excuse to weasel out of paying genuine claims. Ambulance-chasing lawyers operating on a "no win, no fee" basis and attracting clients through adverts offering easy money can be equally dubious.
So, like most things, a balance is needed. We need to accept that the idea of suing for minor mishaps can reach the level of the absurd if not regulated. Tony Blair, in a recent speech in which he attacked the compensation culture, cited the example of a local council removing its hanging flower baskets from a street because of fears they could fall on someone's head.
 |
"Asbo Kids" by Commonorgarden is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0 |
This is an excellent, albeit idiotic, demonstration of what is known as the compensation culture. If a warning or disclaimer is not present on a product then all sorts of legal avenues for compensation are left wide open. Many fear that a US-style litigation system, where you can sue for just about anything, is developing in Europe.
But this is a complicated issue. The British government's Better Regulation Task Force feels that the notion of a compensation culture in the UK is a myth. The UK is nowhere close to the US, and accident claims for injuries, for example, are dropping rather than increasing. Some companies have an interest in increasing the hype around the so-called compensation culture, as it can potentially discourage claims. Some may even try to use it as an excuse to weasel out of paying genuine claims. Ambulance-chasing lawyers operating on a "no win, no fee" basis and attracting clients through adverts offering easy money can be equally dubious.
So, like most things, a balance is needed. We need to accept that the idea of suing for minor mishaps can reach the level of the absurd if not regulated. Tony Blair, in a recent speech in which he attacked the compensation culture, cited the example of a local council removing its hanging flower baskets from a street because of fears they could fall on someone's head.
At the same time, compensation cannot be dismissed as a dirty issue. In South Africa, Paula Howell, of Pretoria's Legal Resources Centre, has commented in the Business Report Online that possibly tens of thousands of compensation claims from the Workmen's Compensation Fund cannot be finalised because employers have not completed the correct forms. Avoiding responsibility in this way is as problematic as making a spurious compensation claim. The law can force people to take responsibility for protecting workers and take to task those who make overstated compensation claims. But the law is a blunt instrument. At the end of the day, the issue boils down to personal responsibility and fairness. Putting workers or consumers in a situation where they may be in danger implies accountability from those placing them at risk. Equally, expecting companies to fork out if you do something stupid or exaggerate injury is hardly reasonable. Warnings on packaging can be useful; take, for example, health warnings on cigarette packs. A few more warnings in South Africa may not go amiss, such as cautioning people of the dangers of carrying workers on the back of open vehicles or overcrowding taxis. But let's not go overboard. As I fired up my new braai this weekend, opened a beer and a bag of peanuts, then came the clincher: "Warning – this product may contain nuts!"
This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 10 June 2005 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)