Tuesday 13 August 2013

Germany's impossible choice



Germany is the enigma of Europe. A great, central power, economically dominant in the continent. Striding forward with its ‘modern’ economic plans, with a hint of I-told-you-so sneer at the catastrophic borrowing policies enacted by the Southern European countries, Germany could be seen to have never been so great since the time of you-know-who. And yet, humbled by its turbulent past role in Europe’s affairs, Germany also seems reluctant to flaunt its wealth, instead choosing a path of peace and prosperity with the EU. In contrast, Britain, the so-called ‘defender of Europe’, has been plagued by anti-Europe referenda and the rise of the UKIP party amid nationalistic fervor in recent years. Sounds hypocritical to me.
           However, Germany’s adoption of a friendly Europe, in which it is nonetheless the dominant power, has left it in a pickle. The German transition in Europe’s hierarchy of power and economic wealth in recent years is known only too well by the ennui-burdened politicians of the continent. And it is this transition, from the ‘sick man of Europe’, which forces Germany now to act responsibly in accordance with the EU it so rigorously upholds. Germany’s current position under Angela Merkel: force the debt-ridden governments to enact brutal austerity measures, in exchange for the writing off of debt. But this is not a tenable solution. Undemocratic governments, loathed by the peoples of Greece and Spain, will collapse. Further debts will default. The people certainly have the right to be angry – after all, they did not manage their economies in such a way which left them facing disaster – but nevertheless, the looming pension crisis will create further critical debt which threatens to ‘undevelop’ the entire region. The current generation will not – cannot – compromise; and the next will bear the brunt.                          
           Whether or not there is irony in these fatal economic processes occurring against the backdrop of a successful, mega-rich international economic organization (the EU) is not the point that Germany must consider. For the real quagmire in which the country is trapped is far more severe. Ending European hegemony over each nation, with countries returning to their original currencies, is out of the question. Not to mention the extreme devastation this would likely cause to reliant PIIGS economies, as well as the huge damage to trade if the Euro were to collapse, it is simply an impossible position for Germany to occupy, as it is the glue sticking the Eurozone together.         But neither can Germany sit tight and hope for the best. Austerity until debt is no longer a feature of life, is simply not possible. If just one country rejects this state-of-affairs, the whole economic region will be brought down. And so, what is Germany to do?
            The fact is, there isn’t an easy option. That is why, certainly from a British or Cameron perspective, Germany and Merkel are so frustratingly idle. Of course Cameron wants a rebate on Britain’s position on the EU! He sees it as an organization in terminal decline. And perhaps he will be right. Unless Germany adopts a third way; a light for the rest of Europe to follow. A complete reform of the European; the global financial system to allow stable economies. What this reform will entail, and how it will be achieved, remains unclear. But certainly it seems a better prospect than Germany’s current options – sitting on its current, doomed austerity trajectory, or the unthinkable – breaking up the single currency.

Thucydides - out.

Tuesday 30 July 2013

Right now, the NHS is not being privatized – that’s the beauty of the long game






The left, the unions, ‘Red Len’, even senior medical professionals – all have been warning of a health apocalypse ever since this government took to power in May 2010. The impending doom of the N.H.S. is an unfathomable, if often seemingly far-fetched, prospect. Our hard-fought social and welfare structures created in a war-torn post-imperial state make Britain after 1948 a unique and proud country. Thus, if the very entity that binds us all together, the power of our universal, free health service, was to be destroyed, we have every right to be up in arms, and should expect others to act in the same way.
            And that’s exactly the point. This is what the unions and all those on the left have been missing. The government may be despised for its blatant ideology-focused policies, and derided for its incompetence, but they are certainly not stupid. Their ideological focus is in fact what drives them on to succeed. They know that however nonplussed or frustrated the British people are with Labour’s management of the economy, bringing down the public service of the N.H.S. would bring down the walls of Jericho with it. Such a fundamental change, altering Britain’s place in the world and one of its few positions of moral ‘high ground’ over its superpower ally, the U.S., would be catastrophic. The people would not stand for it. The equivalent of Cameron’s impeachment would happen – almost immediately. So this is not what the Conservatives will do. Their plan is far subtler and far nastier. Gradually, more and more contracts will be sold – to the likes of Serco and G4S. Remember that name from anywhere? I wonder perhaps, the difference between public frustration at inefficient security arrangements, and the public’s reaction to negligent mismanagement, perhaps leading to ‘profits’ getting in the way of people, a poor standard of care and even (I speculate here) a higher mortality rate as a result. Whether or not this is valid speculation, what is certainly true is that gradually chunks of the NHS – still free at the moment – are being put up for sale for the highest bidder. The government claims that they are fiercely legislating to protect high standards, and somehow suggest that companies with a purpose of profit will improve standards – yes, people will still be put first. But the fundamental point is that this is being done slowly and carefully. The Tories are relying on a majority in 2015 to enact these changes to their full potential. But they will certainly be enacted. Whether that will mean eventually paying for appointments to the doctor, as was favored by 52% of GPs in a recent survey, cannot be predicted. But a stand cannot be taken to protect the N.H.S. when – thus far – it is fundamentally as strong as it was before this government took power.
            There are, hence two objectives which the British public can take to prevent long-term damage to our proudest institution. Firstly, block any further reform after 2015 by kicking the Conservatives out of power. And secondly, maintain our political activism as with any other issue. Keep an eye out at your local hospital for ‘changes to improve efficiency’ or similar wishy-washy changes. Read or access a news source such as the Guardian, perhaps the best for championing the anti-privatization movement and alerting the public to undesirable changes. Then, when they go too far, we will know about it – and be in a position to strike.

Sunday 28 July 2013

The rest of the faithful world should follow in Francis’ footsteps



Since taking office on 13 March, Pope Francis (Jorge Begoglio) has been something of a revelation. Not in living memory, and certainly not in the papacy’s prehistoric days, has the Vatican had such a open-minded, wholehearted and people-first approach to spreading faith. And whilst this has left some asking the question, “Is the Pope Catholic?”, the majority of the- and atheists alike are quietly beaming with reverence at the ostensible kindness and humility of the newly-promoted cardinal.
            Perhaps it comes down to his heritage. Born in Buenos Aires in 1936, Francis is best known for ascending to the post of Archbishop of the said ‘Fair Winds’ city before being elected by Rome. It was with little surprise that the first ‘Latino’ leader had been chosen by a Vatican recoiling in scandal and corruption, seeking to reach out and reconcile with its deeply religious roots overseas. Nonetheless, there were already clairvoyants within the papal convent nodding heads to one another, and commenting on the likely munificence of the new leader. Thus far, they have been proven very right.
            Pope Francis, despite his age and unconventional attire, is a man of the people, choosing to mingle with crowds and avoid the pomp and ceremony of previous leaders, including predecessor Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger). And Francis’ words, heard by many a lent ear, seem to match his ‘common predicament.’ Particularly in South America, where he has a hugely devoted following, Francis speaks aggressively of the contrast between rich and poor, between luxury and poverty, between the grand official houses of Sao Paulo and the favelas and shacks barely kilometers away. Constantly Francis has hitherto called upon his people to consider the poverty of the 21st century, and do their best to rectify it. As Bentham decreed in the 18th century, Francis is an advocate for ‘the greatest good for the greatest number.’
            Most of the world has, accordingly, been pleased by this. In fact, South American Protestants have even prayed with Begoglio, during the period which he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires. This has shocked the other Christian denominations and conservative factions of Catholicism alike, but it raises an important point, and one which Francis seems determined to pummel into those who worship him: with unity, change can be achieved. Francis is merely facilitating what could, and arguably should, have been achieved by perhaps the most powerful person in the world a long time ago – the pope has absolute religious authority over 1.2 billion people. Perhaps not quite as much as the Chinese Communists – but nevertheless it is a privilege to have the ears of so many people, expectantly waiting for a decree in God’s name. By condemning the presence of poverty in the 21st century, and the elite globalised financial system which conspires to retain it as an entity, the infallible one is creating a new truth. Brazil has 10% of the world’s Catholics – a colossal number – who are now inspired, if not already, to join the protests wrecking the country’s preparations for the 2014 FIFA World Cup. The fact that people power threatens the very hosting of one of the most prestigious world sporting events, is testament to the unity of religion, and thus indirectly, the leadership of Francis. If other world faith leaders – many of whom such as the Dalai Lama already have a fierce reputation for social justice – follow in his footsteps, the world is certain to become a better place.
Thucydides - out.

Wednesday 24 July 2013

Primark are not to blame for the 1 129 deaths in the Rana Plaza factory collapse. You are



Primark are not to blame for the 1 129 deaths in the Rana Plaza factory collapse. You are


On April 24, the cloying images appeared once more on our TV screens and in newspapers. Another Third World industrial disaster. Reminiscent of the Thane collapse in India earlier this year, and before that, the fires in factories in Lahore and Karachi, Pakistan’s two largest cities in 2012, it was an issue the West could scarcely ignore. Did you stare tragically at your cell phone, pondering the pointless loss of life? Of course you did. But there was a subtle resignedness there too; you felt a nagging sensation of the inevitability of the collapse. Rules aren’t followed, buildings collapse, people die. Corrupt governments squirm out of blame, and corrupter TNCs carry on making profits from cheap clothing. That’s the way it is, isn’t it? Always has been, at least for the last 40 years?
            There’s no harm in thinking that way. After all, its true. But what the news reel neglects to tell you, is that there have been 46 garment fire incidents alone in 8 months just in Bangladesh. Thus this is nowhere near an isolated problem. It’s not even of systemic proportions – it’s pandemic. Of course, there are those in the media who have been alerted to this problem. The outcry has come from far and wide – consumer and environmental groups, Pope Francis even, are justified in calling for fundamental changes in the way factories and the government legislate throughout the Third World. But for their many faults, TNCs are enacting much of this change, and have done so already. Laws to facilitate increasing of building regulations and the increasing power of workers through their unions to refuse unsafe working conditions are coming into prominence, if slowly amongst corrupt Bangladeshi officials. It’s not easy to refuse to work in a building, when that work is the only means of providing your next meal. But now the world has witnessed yet another high-profile atrocity such as Rana Plaza, more steps are being taken.
            So if TNCs are taking action to protect workers abroad, can they really be blamed for tragedies like this? More could be done, certainly, but who has the greatest motive to reform: companies with a vested interest to squeeze a profit out of Third World workers and Western consumers; or a government democratically elected and with direct responsibility for its people? I’m not suggesting of course that the TNCs are all forcibly evicted from developing countries with immediate effect. There is no doubt that the tertiary employment they provide is fast accelerating development and helping lift individuals and families from the deprivation and poverty of living in isolated, rural areas. And great strides are being taken to reform working conditions and pay. But it’s not enough. The person these companies are most responsible to is you, the consumer. It is your choice to purchase clothes produced abroad. And your choice to accept events such as Rana Plaza and move on with your life. With pressure on your behalf, and other ethically-minded individuals such as yourself, change can be wrought. It is the only way. These companies are starting to make the right changes, but they need your help – or force – to take it to the next level. Neither a capitalist-entangled Western government, or a weak and desperate Third World one. And certainly not a bureaucratic, death-by-committee EU. It is you who is needed to make the difference. Companies like Primark and Walmart are merely the channel for change. You are the one who can make it happen.
Thucydides - out.