Reflecting on Globalisation

Globalisation has had a bad press. Everyone seems to be against it. And yet, do we know what it is that we are against? And are there aspects of it that aren’t all so negative?
What is globalisation?
It is interesting that generally speaking, globalisation is seen as an economic thing. Searching for a definition of globalisation, the first ‘hit’ on Google is:

Screen Shot 2017-03-22 at 12.55.15

But of course, that’s only part of the story.
A broader definition would probably put it like Wikipedia does: the process of international integration arising from the interchange of worldviews, products, ideas, and other aspects of culture.
For me, globalisation meant, first and foremost, that the world was becoming more accessible than it had seemed when I grew up in a small, conservative, parochial town in southern Germany. Globalisation (although at the time I didn’t use or even know that term) meant: getting away from the constraints of place.
How did that even appear on my horizon? We didn’t travel far when I was young. We lived close enough to international borders so that we had experience of crossing them, of hearing other languages spoken, of showing passports and of using foreign money. But it was still on a very small scale and there wasn’t an expectation that we would spend anything other than holidays ‘abroad’.

Passport visas

When I grew up, in the 50s and 60s of the 20th century, we had only just come out of the second of two devastating wars. Neighbouring countries were still viewed with some trepidation and fear, if not outright hostility.
So when in part because of our connection to Quakers and in part due to marginally reducing travel costs, the prospect of travelling to the US and spending a year there came into view, it seemed the most amazing and liberating thing that had ever happened or would ever happen.

And of course, once you step on that train, you can’t get off. Having experience of other cultures, making friends in other places, inevitably and irrevocably changes you – for the better. However scary the experience is.

Who is us?

Limited Experience of Interconnectedness

One of the things that is important to remember is this: very few people, comparatively, have the experience of being in a different place. I’m not talking about 2 weeks’ holiday or a shopping spree to New York. I’m talking about living in another place, with other people, having to learn to adapt to another way of doing things. And language is only one – and not even the most difficult – aspects of this.
So the positive experience of broadening horizons, of seeing things from a different vantage point, of breathing more freely in terms of the way one thinks, is not a universally shared experience.
Erasmus_logo

Even with 60 years of the European Union and many years of the Erasmus student exchange programme, it is still only a small percentage of all students who participate. According to EU statistics, there were 19.6 million students in higher education in 2013 , for example and there were 268 000 participants in the Erasmus programme . That makes about 1.3 %.

So if very few people actually gain this experience, it is not altogether surprising if only a very few people actually feel strongly about the interconnectedness with others that this experience brings.
On 20 March 2017, Dr. Giles Fraser spoke on the BBC Radio 4’s ‘Thought for the Day’ about this. He was commenting on a book, ‘On the Road to Somewhere’ by David Goodhart, published on 17 March 2017 by C. Hurst and Co.
Essentially, Dr. Fraser was reflecting on the notion that there are people who are ‘Somewheres’ who have a loyalty to place, to home and to their own people and there are ‘Anywheres’ who operate as nomadic individualists who don’t. He suggests that there is a somewhere that can transcend place (I think what he was driving at was seeing religion (in his case) or possibly more broadly ideology as a ‘somewhere’. In that sense he was asking ‘who is us?’

The bigger problem

But then it struck me that as one of the nomadic individualists of this analysis I’m not a great fan of what is more cEconomic Globalisationommonly understood by economic globalisation either. And this, in my view, is the rub: globalisation isn’t one thing and therefore it is not possible and not sensible to have one view about it.
Economic globalisation has enabled large players in the many markets to do
some or all of the following:
• Move work from one economy to another, chasing lower wages and poorer employment rights
• Move goods from one economy to another, chasing higher prices and higher returns
• Move their headquarters from one economy to another, chasing lower or no taxes
All this is classic business economics of course: you try to produce at the lowest possible cost; you try to sell at the highest possible profit; and you try to spend as little as possible on non-productive costs (such as taxes). Makes sense, doesn’t it? Or does it?
What are the consequences for real people?
• Unacceptable working conditions: including slave wages, zero hour contracts, no benefits, no job security, no unionisation rights. All the power in the hands of the employer, none in the hands of the workers

negative side of globalisation• Unacceptable strain on the planet: too much stuff is produced; too much stuff is consumed (much at incredibly low prices) and a kind of artificial demand is stoked with advertising that leads people to spend, spend, spend (on credit of course). So we go and buy cheap clothes and shoes, not worrying too much about who paid the price for this. But at the same time we don’t like the fact that our wages don’t go up because there’s always someone else somewhere who will do the work for less and with less security.
• Unacceptable strain on the community: if taxes are low, governments have less to spend. If people are technically self-employed, there is less by way of employers’ contributions to pensions and social security. If governments don’t have money, then people working in the public sector don’t get decent wages; services aren’t delivered, and society grinds to a halt.

All these are consequences of globalisation; much of what is happening to make the world economy into one single economy, would not be possible without the extensive global transport and communication networks that already exist. Of course, those, too, have a major impact on the planet. If we ship carpets halfway across the world because wool is cheaper in New Zealand and labour is cheaper in India but the carpets are needed in Europe, then we need fuel to do this.
But all these are also consequences of immeasurable greed – the greed of shareholders and of bankers who cannot understand that if the wages of the workers can’t go up and if their contribution to the common good isn’t made, then their returns should also be curbed.
When did it become commonplace to think that capital should have no controls on its returns but labour should be squeezed to the lowest level of pay?
So, yes, globalisation plays a part but it is driven by greed. And, ironically, for those of us who are nomadic individualists, this is not forced to be our normal modus operandi, not least because we have seen how other people live and that there is more to life than profit.
earthday2008The solidarity that comes from a global outlook, from an understanding that our place is Earth and that we share it will all other people here now and here in the future and many other living things, is an understanding that could curb the greed that drives the downside of globalisation.

 

 

 

 

Theresa May said in her conference speech in October 2016: ‘But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means. ’ She couldn’t have been more wrong. We need to understand that the somewhere we belong to is the world and that our people are all people. That will be the starting point for learning how we can live together peacefully and with justice. We need to understand that so long as people flee the place of their birth for want of food, for want of clean water, for want of a roof over their head, for want of basic security and safety there will be no peace anywhere. We need to understand that so long as there is the level of global inequality we see now, there will be no justice anywhere.
We need a new movement: a popular movement of the ‘Somewheres’ and the ‘Anywheres’ together for peace and justice. When that has been achieved, the question of how enmeshed we want to be with place or with ideology will become irrelevant and simply a matter of personal preference. It will be a time when we will have friends across the globe (made possible through the Internet) and where the main issue for all of us will be to have a good life – a life that can only be good if life is good for others, too.

 

Image Credits:
Image of visas in passport: https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4029/4505185416_25054bc9cb_b.jpg
Erasmus logo: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/90/Erasmus_logo.svg/858px-Erasmus_logo.svg.png
Globalisation: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/2a/57/f0/2a57f09ecc324307e9eb8db904617758.png
Negative impact of globalisation: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/06/55/31/065531d5b884a26d985d99e56d4d91ad.jpg
The world in our hands: http://www.changethethought.com/wp-content/

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Education Under Occupation: No way to treat a child

The treatment of children in war zones and in conflict is critically important for the prospect of peace in the future. I am reblogging this piece to bring it to another audience, to highlight the important work that the EAPPI programme is doing and to highlight the work of DCIP, a charity that works tirelessly to protect vulnerable children.

EAPPI UK and Ireland Eyewitness Blog

By Margaret, Northern West Bank

Several times a week I walk with my team of Ecumenical Accompaniers (EAs) alongside students from the villages of as-Sawiya and al-Lubban ash-Sharqiya for a kilometre alongside the A60 – the main road from Jerusalem to Nabulus – to their schools. As we walk among the children they have great fun teasing us in Arabic and testing out their English.

Our purpose is to provide a protective presence for the children as they walk past Israeli troops. The soldiers usually stay by their vehicles opposite the front of the boys’ school or walk into nearby fields and around to the back. On our first day as the new EA team here, however, the soldiers tell us that they need to walk among the children to catch a boy who they allege threw a stone yesterday.

View original post 584 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Post Truth Era? In defence of truth

Lately, the phrase ‘post-truth’ has gained currency in describing the times we live in, much like post-modern or post-industrial might have been used previously. This phrase sticks in my crow.

  • First, what does it mean?
  • Second, is it true – although that question may be thought to be tautological?
  • Third, what do we do about the assertion that it is true when we think it isn’t or shouldn’t be?

What does ‘post-truth’ – or for that matter ‘truth’ mean?

To answer the question of what ‘post-truth’ might mean, first we need to think about what we mean by truth. And whether we spell it with a lower case or capital ‘T’.

To me, truth can be two very different things:

  • One is evidence-based fact. That should be a self-evident concept. Either something is or isn’t a fact. Either an incident happened or it didn’t. Either a thing exists or it doesn’t. But of course I know that philosophy, physics and other disciplines have ways of questioning these things. However, those questions go – in my understanding – more to the question of what a thing or an event is and less to whether it is exists.
  • We know of course, that different people perceive events differently. To appreciate this, all we really need to do is to listen to or read witness statements relating to the same incident from several different people. And that is the other thing that truth is, in my view: the honestly held opinion that something is the way it is perceived by any given individual.

From the point of view of both understanding the world around us and assessing the truth of information we are given, both of these aspects of truth are important. There is nothing wrong with having our own perception of the world around us. It is normal and it is human. There is also nothing wrong with maintaining that our perception is true (for us); but it never is and never can be ‘The Truth’; because that suggests that other perceptions of the same event or thing are wrong or false.

This view of truth also leads to a clear understanding that anyone can change their perception of the world around them and find to a new/different ‘truth’ for themselves. A good example would be that once we had a photo of the planet earth taken from space our understanding of what the earth looks like and what it means to have a finite planet change irrevocably for just about everyone who saw that photo.

And then there is the thinking about and analysing of facts, things, and events. To what extent is that truth? Well, this is where things get a bit complicated. Because we all have a set of assumptions about how we see things and that influences how we analyse and interpret what goes on around us. And so, when others tell us things and give us their assessment or analysis of what they are discussing, then we need to understand what those assumptions and perceptions are, and indeed, what interest they may have in a particular view of the issues.

When people speak about ‘post-truth’ I can only assume that they suggest that we now live in an era when it’s ok (or at least common place) for people to assert facts and make up events that don’t exists and never happened and people believe it because they said it, or because it is on social media and millions of people have shared it or because it sound plausible.

Is it true?

There are elements of what I believe people mean by post-truth that are happening.

So-called opinion-formers, people we tend to listen to, for example politicians or journalists, or celebrities or people we admire, say things and they are taken as true because of who said it. Or because of how often they get shared in social and other media.

There is another kind of ‘post-truth’; the media create headlines which sound as if they mean one thing when in fact they don’t and if one reads the article in full it is made clear that the headline is not the whole story or even not the story at all. But of course, our busy lives mean we often don’t read beyond the headlines.

But does that mean we can call our current era a ‘post-truth’ era? This would be reasonable if this kind of media behaviour were more prevalent now than it had been in the past.

I haven’t seen any research on the question of whether this is so, but I rather suspect people have always said things to aid their viewpoint without too much regard for the truth of what they said. The difference today is that we hear a lot more of the stuff in more and more abbreviated form and with less and less access to contextual information about why people are saying what they are saying.

So there is a lot of lying going on. But does that make our era a ‘post-truth’ era?

I would say (and granted, this is my opinion) that we have a choice about whether we live in a ‘post-truth’ era or not.

We know people lie; we know people lie for different reasons; we know people say things that aren’t true, sometimes without malice. So we have a choice. And the only way we would actually be living in a ‘post-truth’ era would be if we accepted everything we’re told and didn’t check it out. But we don’t need to do that. We shouldn’t do that.

So what do we do about it?

Many years ago when I started a new job in a local authority in the North of England, we had an induction week for new management staff, which included a session with the Chief Legal Officer. He started his presentation with the following statement: ‘Assume nothing, check everything, trust nobody’. At the time, I thought that this was a dreadfully negative view of the world. But all these years later I’d say: wise words.

It is tedious, I know; because it’s more comfortable and less time consuming to just get news from sources we trust (usually because they share our view of the world). But if we want to maintain a society where truth matters, where we stand up for truth, which respects everyone (because very nearly always lies are told for the benefit of some and the dis-benefit of others) then we have to live by that maxim.

When I read or hear something I ask these questions:

  • Does it make sense?
  • Is there any reference to sources of background and factual information?
  • Who is telling the story? Do they have vested interests? Are they likely to be well informed about the matter?
  • If most of the information is capture in a picture – what might be wrong with the picture? Pictures can be staged. And infographics aren’t there to tell the ‘truth’, they’re there to tell a story from a particular view point.
  • Is it the full story?
  • What are the consequences of believing what is said?

It makes life very difficult sometimes. Because just one item on the news, just one story in the press, one tweet, one Facebook post could take time to check and may lead nowhere. But I am getting more and more careful about simply re-tweeting and sharing. I use fact-check website. I look on the websites originating the stories to find out: Who is writing? Who is paying? Who is advertising? All these things matter.

And one final thing: when people shout assertions in massive halls crowded with people prepared to shout back slogans (be they from the right, the left, the middle or from Mars) be very afraid and don’t trust what they say.

Posted in Behind the Headlines, Politics in context, The mechanics of politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

How Low Have we Sunk?

Standards in public life are perceived to be at an all-time low. This is a problem. It is a problem because it means that people don’t trust politicians and all those associated with politics (and that includes many public servants). But of course many people in public life are trustworthy, have high standards, and are doing their jobs for the right reasons: to make a difference, to make things better for people and to make the world a better place.

In the years while I worked in public service myself, and in the years when I was doing advocacy with elected officials (and their civil servants), I had ample opportunity to encounter many people who demonstrated what is best in public service.

But of course there are the ‘rogue’ elements. And they give everyone a bad name. And we have seen them hogging the limelight for all the wrong reasons. And somehow, they seem to be the ones that get into power.

The Referendum Campaign

We have seen in this most recent campaign that both main campaigns told lies on an industrial scale. Whatever you think about the result, what must be clear to everyone is this: many people made their decision without having factual information that was relevant to the issue at hand. That is a major problem because it leaves open questions about whether the referendum decision should even be valid.

Politically, I would not want to question the validity of the result despite the fact that I am stunned – not to say grief-stricken – by the result. But I am sure that there are many who voted for Leave who already regret this and who realise that they were sold a pup by the chief Brexiteers.

And so the trust in politicians and the media sinks some more. That is the real problem.

Two petitions

Some activists have set up petitions to highlight the problems we have with the lack of truth and accountability in public affairs. The first of these was actually started well before the referendum and was on the government website (where people can set up petitions which have to be debated if they achieve 100 000 signatures or more.

Screen Shot 2016-07-25 at 15.46.25

This is that first one. It closed on 26 July 2016 and the government petition website suggest that this was the end of the 6 months period during which it was open. It didn’t reach it’s 100 000 signatures, but the government did make a response.

The second of these petitions was set up on Change.org and is still running. It has a target of 25 000 of which it has reached 18 300 approximately at the time of writing this post.

The nub of this petition is this:

We urge the Government to create an independent body like the ASA, with the remit and power to verify claims made in political campaign material and compel bodies to retract and correct statements which are demonstrably misleading.

 

This petition is addressed to David Cameron but of course he – along with many of the other architects of this dreadful Referendum and its outcome – has departed the scene.

The Government Response

The government has responded to the first of the two petitions; it hasn’t responded to the second one and is not likely to do so.

But the response to the first one is extra ordinary in my view. Here is the response I have downloaded from the government website:

Screen Shot 2016-07-25 at 15.45.53That’s it. A simple re-statement of some principles which are fine as far as they go. But the truth is, they are not being observed by many public figures and the reason the petition is there at all is that they are not working, they are not being enforced, people who breach them don’t face any serious consequences and so on.

In other words, the government is basically saying: not interested in the fact that 78 000 plus people are deeply frustrated (and of course the signatories aren’t all the people who think this). We are just going to carry on as if nothing at all needs to change.

It is, then, interesting to see that in a report on 2010, a report published by the Committee on Standards in Public Life found that the perception of perception of the conduct of MPs was pretty shocking (note: the perception – this means that this reflects what people think about the conduct of MPs and does not say anything about their actual conduct). Perceptions of conduct of MPs in 2010

Where does that leave us

Those of us who are trying to move things towards a different kind of politics aren’t getting anywhere right now.

The evidence that change is necessary is clearly there to see. But a government elected by less than 40% of those who bothered to go and vote with a majority of 12 and a Prime Minister elected by Tory MPs only is free to ignore us.

My thought on this: what are our MPs thinking about this? You don’t know what yours is thinking – well, there’s only one thing for it: go and ask.

We can’t really allow the government to ignore this important issue.

And as for the petition on the Change.org site – maybe the person who started it could come up with a strategy as to how to

(a) get a more significant number of signatures and

(b) move from petition to a definite proposal that is to be presented to government in a way they can’t ignore.

That may well require support from other politicians; but it is also something that might be part of a platform for any progressive alliance that may (hopefully) evolve before the next General Election.

What is absolutely essential is this: the electorate has to have a viable alternative to more of the same tired, dangerous, dishonest processes loosely described as democracy. The level of distrust is a verdict on the shambles we have.

Posted in Behind the Headlines, Constitutional Reform, Electoral Reform, Politics in context, The mechanics of politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Democratic Deficit

I’ve written before about the antiquated and unfair voting system in the UK. But here, I’m going to widen this to look at the democratic system in the UK more broadly. We’ve just been subjected to weeks of rhetoric about the democratic deficit of the EU; it has culminated in what I must say is – in my view – one of the worst decisions the UK electorate has made in decades.

So I want to just flag up a little of what democratic deficit we have here, right on our door step.

Our Constitution

First of all, we don’t have a written constitution. That doesn’t mean we don’t have one; it just means that it is not properly codified and thus not all that clear-cut.

How are our laws are made?

Who makes the laws?

Setting aside what happens at EU level for a moment, our laws are made by Parliament (or so everyone says). But who is Parliament? Most of the laws are proposed by the Government (the executive arm of a democracy) which in our case is also part of Parliament (the legislative arm of a democracy). This can muddy the waters.

Secondly, we have a Parliament which consists of two chambers: the House of Commons, elected by a First Past the Post system that regularly returns majorities for parties who command less than the majority of the popular vote. Our current Parliament is a case in point. And the House of Lords, which is an entirely unelected chamber. It has less power than the House of Commons, but to say it has no power would be naive.

Finally, we have an unelected, hereditary Head of State in the monarch.

So how does that sound as far as government by the people for the people is concerned?

What are the constraints?

Generally speaking, a government should enact laws that broadly flow from the manifesto on which they stood for election. This is observed in the exception, more than in the norm. And because our electoral system throws up majorities that give governments more power than they should have – and the current government is a case in point – they do things they never talked about during the campaign. And they get away with it. Why?

Here, we get to the whip system. We should really be worried by the fact that we have people in our Parliament who are officially called Whips. Each of the parties has them – except those parties that have only 1 MP. And in the case of the Green Party, it is party policy not to subject elected representatives to such an antiquated form of authority.

The whip system basically says this: the party leadership decides how they want to vote on a particular matter before Parliament and they tell their members to vote that way. Members are obliged to do so; some don’t always do that which is called ‘defying the whip’. This simple act of voting on the basis of analysis, thought, values, and engagement with constituents is described as defiance in our democracy.

But there is more: MPs (on the government side) are appointed to be Secretaries of State and Ministers and Junior Ministers. In other words, they remain MPs but they are also part of the government.

On the opposition benches, there is a similar set-up but the people concerned are called the ‘shadow’ Secretary, Minister, or Junior Minister or spokesperson.

What does that mean? All of them are bound by ministerial protocol which seriously curtails their ability to engage in common parliamentary activities such as signing Early Day Motions and taking part in what is called ‘back-bench’ business. They also commonly don’t speak on matters outside of their portfolio.

Where does that leave their constituents? As a constituent who has been represented since  2010 by either a junior minister or a shadow junior minister, I can tell you where it leaves you: frustrated!

What is the alternative?

We need electoral reform: a system of proportional representation (the Additional Member System used in the London Assembly and the Scottish Assembly works well) which means that a broader range of views are represented in the parliament. This would also allow those MPs who are likely to take on ministerial or shadow ministerial positions to be elected through the list system and thus not compromise the functions of a constituency MP: to represent and listen to their constituents.

We need constitutional reform: we need an elected second chamber (again, with PR); we need an elected Head of State; we need a chamber for the parliament which is circular (to avoid the unedifying shouting matches) and which has sufficient seats for all MPs.

And that’s just Westminster. Wait till I start on devolution, local government and democracy and real engagement of the public. But that’s for another blog.

Posted in Constitutional Reform, Electoral Reform, Politics in context | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Spotlight on the EU arms industry

This is a really good summary of some of the key issues in relation to the Arms Industry. Well done to QCEA for putting it together.
I hope you all enjoy it and forgive me for taking this from QCEA rather than doing it all myself. But having read theirs, I didn’t think it was useful for me to do the research again.

The QCEA Blog

QCEA has recently published an information sheet in four languages, providing facts about the EU arms industry.

Did you know…?

German-made tanks taking part in a military training exercise Photo credit: Bundeswehr-Fotos Creative Commons licence CC BY 2.0 German-made tanks taking part in a military training exercise
Photo credit: Bundeswehr-Fotos
Creative Commons licence CC BY 2.0

  • The manufacture and sale of arms is a multi-billion-euro industry.
  • The EU has an official policy, agreed at a summit meeting in December 2013, that treats the arms industry as an important source of both military strength and economic prosperity.
  • In order to continue to contribute to the economy, the EU arms industry needs to export arms to outside the EU. (The EU market isn’t big enough to sustain the industry.)
  • Over 99 per cent of arms export licence applications made in the EU are approved.
  • The arms industry maintains its influence over the highest levels of government through lobbyists and well-placed contacts.

Why is this an issue?

Those of you…

View original post 423 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

CETA: always in TTIP’s shadow

Here is a very helpful update on international trade agreements being negotiated by the EU. It comes from a very reliable source and so I thought I’d share it with you.

The QCEA Blog

In the wake of the recent TTIP leaks and their fallout, including Francois Hollande’s threat to block those negotiations, there is a risk that discussions at the European Council on the very similar deal between the European Union and Canada, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), will slip under the radar. This inconspicuousness is part of a wider lack of attention on CETA, particularly in comparison with the notorious TTIP.

CETA is one of the group of mega trade deals currently in negotiation globally, the most infamous of which is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the United States and the European Union. Compared to TTIP, CETA has garnered relatively little attention, despite the fact that it includes the same controversial measures for investor protection, although Canada and the EU recently agreed to include the EU’s reformed system, ICS.

ICS-7reasons-T There are many problems with the EU’s…

View original post 551 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment