I would like to respond to Julie's blog about the bias in Western media when it reports on the 'Muslim World'. I agree that there is an inherent bias when we hear, see, or most rarely read about news events that take place beyond our borders in areas that are deemed to be different from us. I would recommend that anyone interested in looking at this issue read some of Edward Said's work, especially his "Orientalism".
I must also play devil's advocate. Who has the right to claim what is bias and what is not? Do we not all maintain our own bias? For me claiming bias against/for, etc. any one group is often an exercise in futility. I think we too often become engrossed in our zeal to understand the world, we instead end up becoming a party in bias ourselves. A liberal hears news of a domestic event such as welfare reform or an international event such as Western exploitation and is immediately blinded from examining all the facts. A conservative hears about social spending or a non-western country such as Venezuela exerting power and fails in the same way to examine the facts.
I know this may not seem overly important to globalization. I feel it is though because the new inter-connectedness brings all the new opinions to light. Instead we must first examine our own bias to ensure that efforts to understand all bias, western and non-western, are somewhat objective and thoughtful. Good night.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
ZDF Mediathek
I think that basically the 9-11 ZDF "museum" is quite good and interesting, because it combines original material from 9-11 newsshows and eyewitness accounts from people with different nationalities and from different places and how they experienced 9-11 and its aftermath.
But I do not know if one could really speak of a "museum", because for me it lacks a lot of important information...
The "museum" only focuses on the actual 9-11 events and only aims at people's emotions, without looking for a more criticial approach why 9-11 might have happened. I would have liked a more impartial approach, because that is what I expect an impartial medium to be like...whether it is a museum or a TV station...
But I do not know if one could really speak of a "museum", because for me it lacks a lot of important information...
The "museum" only focuses on the actual 9-11 events and only aims at people's emotions, without looking for a more criticial approach why 9-11 might have happened. I would have liked a more impartial approach, because that is what I expect an impartial medium to be like...whether it is a museum or a TV station...
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
India's agricultural troubles
Nearly every college student today knows a little something about being in debt. Some students might only end up a couple thousand dollars in debt, while others may end up paying back a hundred thousand dollars or more by the time they graduate. We brush off this small debt like nothing, planning to pay the debt back over perhaps the next ten years. While paying back the loans for school, most will end up further in debt when they go to buy a house. It seems to be a big circle of borrowing money and paying it back.
Now consider people in other countries who borrow money. Take a look at the farmers of India (article), who borrow money to plant their crops and pray that the crop yields enough profit to pay back their loans (and sometimes 5% interest per month). Thats right, 5% per month for some of them. According to the article in NY Times, the average farmers' debt was $835. That is about what we pay for one credit at Virginia Wesleyan College. To us $835 is nothing, but to these farmers this debt is worth commiting suicide over. In 2003, there were more than 17,000 farmers who committed suicide.
The pressure of the farmers is finally forcing the Indian government to act. Part of the problem is also the insanely high interest rates that the private moneylenders are charging the farmers, which will hopefully end soon after the government steps in. They will begin by waiving the interest on current loans and by partly controlling what the private lenders can do.
I just find it intriguing that the average debt is only $835 and people are having trouble paying it back. My debt will be more than 40 times that amount when I'm finished taking loans out for school. This just shows how different the economies are, and how poor the agricultural economy is right now in India.
Now consider people in other countries who borrow money. Take a look at the farmers of India (article), who borrow money to plant their crops and pray that the crop yields enough profit to pay back their loans (and sometimes 5% interest per month). Thats right, 5% per month for some of them. According to the article in NY Times, the average farmers' debt was $835. That is about what we pay for one credit at Virginia Wesleyan College. To us $835 is nothing, but to these farmers this debt is worth commiting suicide over. In 2003, there were more than 17,000 farmers who committed suicide.
The pressure of the farmers is finally forcing the Indian government to act. Part of the problem is also the insanely high interest rates that the private moneylenders are charging the farmers, which will hopefully end soon after the government steps in. They will begin by waiving the interest on current loans and by partly controlling what the private lenders can do.
I just find it intriguing that the average debt is only $835 and people are having trouble paying it back. My debt will be more than 40 times that amount when I'm finished taking loans out for school. This just shows how different the economies are, and how poor the agricultural economy is right now in India.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Sunday, September 17, 2006
The spread of norms and human rights
Jacob asked "Just a quick question/comment on your terrorist/freedom fighter issue: I agree that anyone who kills thousands of civilians is a terrorist/criminal. Doesn't who/what you're fighting determine who gets "civilian" status in a war in which both sides (although I disagree with my own implication that there are only two sides) are fighting ill-defined enemies?"
I do not know if this is a direct response to the comment. I remember my IR class learning about norm diffusion in the area of human rights. The main point was that part of the liberal theory follows that the spread of capitalist markets with representative democracies will help propagate what we in the West view as human rights. The problem is that globalization has delivered benefits to the global South, but the benefits have so far failed to be reliable or widespread. One other problem that presented itself on 9/11 is how the West, an area that has a deeply entrenched belief in individual freedom and rights, can fight a war on terror within the bounds of its own moral conscience. We have unfortunate seen the decision up to now how to deal with our beliefs and that is to forget obligations to domestic and international regimes on human rights and torture (US Constitution, Geneva Convention, UN Declaration on Human rights).
I will try to relate this to Jacob's question. I think the global nature of terrorism is what makes this especially difficult to answer. The War on Terror is not a war on a state. It is a war on an unknown (I won't go into the sad implication of this on the chance of peace). As an unknown, the war ranges from the US to Great Britain to Africa and finally to the Middle East. If this war is truly global, then the question of civilian status is extremely muddled. So far combatants have yet to even gain legal recognition as civilians or soldiers.
If we go back to the Geneva Convention, there is what I see as what today could be construed as a protection against civilians and the current practice of networking prisoners to escape regulation.
GENERAL PROTECTION OF PRISONERS OF WAR
Article 12
Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.
Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody.
Nevertheless if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with.
With this is mind, maybe the question evolves into what needs to be done to ensure pre-existing measures are followed by the global community. I would enjoy ideas for a solution from the rest of you. Good night.
I do not know if this is a direct response to the comment. I remember my IR class learning about norm diffusion in the area of human rights. The main point was that part of the liberal theory follows that the spread of capitalist markets with representative democracies will help propagate what we in the West view as human rights. The problem is that globalization has delivered benefits to the global South, but the benefits have so far failed to be reliable or widespread. One other problem that presented itself on 9/11 is how the West, an area that has a deeply entrenched belief in individual freedom and rights, can fight a war on terror within the bounds of its own moral conscience. We have unfortunate seen the decision up to now how to deal with our beliefs and that is to forget obligations to domestic and international regimes on human rights and torture (US Constitution, Geneva Convention, UN Declaration on Human rights).
I will try to relate this to Jacob's question. I think the global nature of terrorism is what makes this especially difficult to answer. The War on Terror is not a war on a state. It is a war on an unknown (I won't go into the sad implication of this on the chance of peace). As an unknown, the war ranges from the US to Great Britain to Africa and finally to the Middle East. If this war is truly global, then the question of civilian status is extremely muddled. So far combatants have yet to even gain legal recognition as civilians or soldiers.
If we go back to the Geneva Convention, there is what I see as what today could be construed as a protection against civilians and the current practice of networking prisoners to escape regulation.
GENERAL PROTECTION OF PRISONERS OF WAR
Article 12
Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.
Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody.
Nevertheless if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with.
With this is mind, maybe the question evolves into what needs to be done to ensure pre-existing measures are followed by the global community. I would enjoy ideas for a solution from the rest of you. Good night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)