Mumbai: India's paradox

An examination induced obsession with Skins and the resulting affection for the main character in "Slumdog Millionaire", as well as having one of my best friends reigning from the huge country itself, has put India on my radar.

Once a country with a film culture so diverse from what I am used to and a national dish that I really cannot acquire a taste for (I admit, I am a bit of a sook... curry is too spicy for me), India has revealed itself to be quite an enigma- and a bit of a dark horse in the race for global economic hegemony.

But I digress, the purpose of this blog is to briefly, seeing as it is getting colder by the minute and I really don't want to be waiting for hours for the next free shuttle bus (free=no complaints), discuss the trends of urbanization today, and the tendency for there to be a disparity between high rates of economic growth and incredibly poor living conditions. Though many cities, particularly in less developed countries, are experiencing this phenomena... Mumbai is it's figurehead. The ultimate example of extreme poverty in a prospering economy.

Mumbai is tipped to become the second largest city in the world, behind Tokyo by 2015. Already with a population tipping 18million, it could, on its own, overtake the population of Australia, or even Scandinavia. It is somewhat an economic hub for India, hosting the city's oldest stock exchange, its most important banks, it provides one third of the taxes collected by the government and is the destination for forty percent of India's international flights. Furthermore, Mumbai gives rise to Bollywood, being the production site of several hundred films and the home to many celebrities. The rent in the more exlcusinve districts of the city are pricier than that of London, Munich and even New York. Mumbai is a giant, a trendy, bustling economic giant.

However, the economic development and sheer affluence of those benefitting from the rising economy does not seem to correlate with the widespread poverty of the city. India's slum dwellers comprise, according to government statistics, 60% of the city's overall population.

Let me repeat that figure: 60%. Over ten million people living in Mumbai are living in squalor, with extremely poor living conditions. For every million people there are 17 public toilets, and at least one third of the residents have no access to clean drinking water.

It is the kind of poverty that makes you question the importance of economic development abnd growth. Of international prowess and influence. And it is difficult to find merit in the ideas of those policy makers and development theorists who argue that the drift of people from rural villages and areas can actually contribute to national development.

I'm not entirely sure that urbanization has become an ugly word in development theory. Though the repurcussions on both the urban centres and the rural areas of urban migration are blatantly negative, transnational corporations, private national corporations and profit driven politicians still justify the rapid expansion of these urban centres as beneficial, contributing to the international respect and sway of the countries and empowering local populations and the social capitol of communities.

Enhancing the social capitol? Empowering local populations? I fail to see any of these justifications actually presenting themselves in practice when you have children reduced to begging for sustenance and people bathing in unsanitised conditions, in public, next door to high rise middle class housing. Not only is is blatantly obvious that the government cannot create enough housing, resources and services for the burgeoning population, but the inequality is contributing to rigid class formation that is becomming entrenched in Indian society.

Of course, poverty is endemic across the globe and has recently been pushed more so into the spotlight with the publishing of the United Nations Millenium Development Goals (UNMDGs), dedicated to tackling poverty and hunger (not that concerns about poverty have been absent up until this point... they have simply become a number one priority for development). And we have countries in part of Asia and sub-Saharan Africa where there is even an apparent absence of a middle class. There is simply the rich... and the poor. But I find it interesting that amidst all this rhetoric of tackling poverty and putting the development of "man" (humanty, in the words of Tanzanian President Nyerere) above economic growth and fiscal progress, that India can be championed as this amazing economic beast to watch out for... when 60% of the population of one of the largest cities in the world is living in absolute desolation.

Can all you development theorists, G20 leaders, and those championing the merits of the UNMDGs please stop contradicting yourselves? It's an insult to talk about a country's success when your people are drinking water most likely contaminated by someone else's urine.

Sorry... couldn't resist.

International Peacekeepers Day

I am about to tackle my four thousand word essay on Georgia and Russia (and Russia's tendency to consider the general international concensus and then do the exact opposite) but before I attempt this arduous task I just wanted to mention that tomorrow (May29th) is officially "International Peacekeepers Day".

It's all about the "Blue Beret", the tragedies and triumphs of the United Nations and the prospects of coming closer and closer to peace.

And it is important to remember those that have sacrificed so much, the individual men and women, police officers, military observers, soldiers, volunteers, builders... the list goes on. Some have lost their lives in the name of peace. Kudos to the thousands of these people who continue to struggle, often unacknowledged, against the violence and evils of the world. It is an inspiration to see their idealism flourish in the most barren scenes of humanity.

Don't think that I am not acknowledging the shortcomings in UN attempted peacekeeping operations (Rwanda, Darfur, The Congo), and the continual presence of civil warfare, conflict related deaths and human rights violations. It is important to reflect on this.

However, tomorrow is all about looking into the future. We have come along way in terms of international cooperation and diplomacy, and the shift in patterns of thinking from an isolationist "empire-centric" sort of paradigm to a genuine desire for peace and prosperity is apparent. We even have instituions and legislation that is making an attempt to tackle issues. Where we once had structures that implicitly promoted inequality, warfare and violations of Human Rights, today we have structures and institutions in place to counteract these.

We are far from absolute success but we are on the right track!

So take a minute to stop and consider the plight of peacekeepers and their contribution to the progress towards global peace and wellbeing.

Gambian Soldiers in Darfur (donning the Blue Beret)

Chinese peacekeepers heading to Liberia

Peacekeepers in Lebannon reacting at the sight of citizens killed at the hand of Israeli warplanes

A Memorial for the peacekeepers that have been killed in Lebanon since 1978. Secretary General for the United Nations lays a wreath in commemoration.

Russia and China... a new world order?

I absolutely love Russia.

I love Russian vodka

I love Russian's revolutionaries. Lenin. Stalin. Trotsky.
(not in a "wow what a good guy kind of way... in a "wow what an interesting guy" kind of way)

I love Russian scandals

(Left) A charicature of Rasputin, the Russian mystic who was, amongst other things, believed to have been intrinsic in the fall of the Romanov family

And former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko who was poisoned. It was suspected to be an attack made by Putin's government whom Litvinenko openly opposed.

I love how the enemies from 1980s and early 1990s Bond movies are always Russian henchmen.

But what I most love about Russia,

Is the fact that even though this superpower suffered a humiliating collapse in 1990, and has endured regional instability ever since, it always lurks in the background... as if the country is plotting a fierce comeback and is going to take down all who opposed them back in the days when the Cold War was raging.

For those who are not yet unsettled, this is what Lenin once threatened, "capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them" (United Press International)

Comforting.

International rhetoric associated with the decline of America, the perils of the economic recession and the potential for a superpower with an entirely different system of government to step onto the scene has somewhat ignored Russia's potential to fulfill this purpose. It hovers on the fringe of the Big Players game occasionally jumping in to prevent a peacekeeping operation here or there, or to instigagte it's own peacekeeping (slash troop deployment) missions when the United Nation "fails" to do so.

There is no denying that Russia is a regional hegemon in Eastern Europe, whether the surrounding countries like this fact or not, Russia has certainly got muscle. As one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, Russia has the power of veto to prevent Council Resolutions from being adopted. And don't think Russia has not taken full advantage of this privilege; since 1946 it has declared a total of 123 vetoes (the United States is in second place with 82).

This power has been used sparingly since the end of the Cold War when Russia endured a period of humble withdrawal from the main stage, but in recent years the country has begun to throw it's weight around in a variety of issues ranging from the attempt to re-build a country in Kosovo to UN sanctions on Zimbabwe.

What could be behind this sudden boost in confidence?

Introducing the best new talent: China!

China has failed to endear itself to me. Of course this is partly due to the fact that the country strictly controls their internet censorship (I am highly addicted to the internet) and is covered by a constant sheet of smog, but the primary cause of my dissent is the systematic violation of human rights that continues to persist unquestionably even as Chinese politics enter the spotlight.

Whether it's my disappointment that such vasts amounts of people are willing to mindlessly support the Chinese attempt to wipe out an entire heritage and culture for the Tibetan people (is anyone else hearing warning bells of genocide?) or the fear that a globally dominant China will soon start to influence my access to basic human rights, at the end of the day... I am not fan.

But Russia is.

There is increasing evidence that Russia and China- two of the most powerful potential threats to the United States, so far unchallenged, dominance- are having "chats". And if these chats lead to some sort of alliance or coalition, the ramifications for the world, whether positive or negative, will be huge.

The geographical location and sheer size of these countries are intimidating in the very least, as is the economic prowess of the two countries.

Russia holds the world’s largest natural gas reserves and is the world’s largest exporter. The country also holds the eighth largest oil reserves, of which it is the second largest oil exporter. ( taken from an article on http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/)

China is, simply, a sleeping giant (that has started to wake up and stretch its arms).

If that part doesn't scare you- then the possibility of Iran being enlisted in the ranks should.

There are a variety of other countries that are considering joining the alliance, including those rapidly developing economic forces of India and Brazil, as well as Iran, South Africa and Venezuela. Though the "alliance" is still in it's fledgling stages, Russia and China's eco-political coalition is making some headway.

A major pipeline for natural gas is in production and will spread from Siberia to Khabarovsk which will allow for a juncture to feed a pipeline to China. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has visited Beijing and discussed the possibility of joining forces, particularly in the area of energy. The two countries are currently negotiating two more natural gas pipelines to enter China from two different locations (again from http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/). While Russia has oil and weapons, China has the resources and hard cash to support Russian economic growth and development of its infrastructure.

What does this mean for the West? We always knew that China and Russia were lurking in the background, waiting for the chance to take the "World's most powerful Country and Self-Proclaimed Police Force" title from America, but perhaps the superpowers' willingness to share the torch might mean the day will come alot sooner. And though there is no question that the entire globe is moving towards more of a diplomatic era where "peace talks" and "resolutions" are being favoured over guns and bombs, this is a product of a western influenced international regime (The UN, EU, etc). So if the US is toppled- will China and Russia start taking the hard line? What does this mean for diplomacy, Human Rights, individualism, and overall Peace and war?

My History professor referred to China as having an "Authoritarian Capitalist" regime. It indicates a more terrifying kind of capitalism... a market completely free of accountability accompanied by a political structure completely free of accountability.

I guess if all of these hypotheticals that I have vastly blown out of proportion eventually take form, at least the US and UK (oh and I forgot about France) have the power of veto as well. So we can rest safe in the knowledge that while Russia and China are out there picking their battles and drafting resolutions, we'll still have the sulky backbencher who can pipe up every now and again and say "nay" when their dominance (what has been reduced to a regional dominance) comes under threat.

Darfur and the absence of will

One of the topics we are studying in my politics class is the crisis in Darfur. I know this country has successfully managed to infiltrate even the periphery of people's consciousness, making it's way into YouTube home videos consisting of montages of famine stricken people accompanied by sad music, and facebook groups entitled "One Click Can Save a Child" (really?). But what is Darfur really about? And why, after at least four years of being well aware that we have a refugee crisis of over 2 million displaced Sudanese people flowing out of West Sudan and a systematic genocide campaign that has wiped out at least 700, 000 people is the international community incapable to doing anything?

Darfur is in the Western region of Sudan. Sudan is a country that has been plagued with civil war since the 1950s a conflict between the rebellious regions of the south against the Sudanese government with whom they wished to secede from. This civil battle has raged for years and it was only in the new Millenium was there an eventual progression towards some sort of agreement. Whislt this was being dealt with, a couple of disgruntled revolutionaries in the West decided to start protesting the government, with weapons of course (there's no such thing as peaceful protest in Africa)

Admidst the fighting that ensued from both conflicts, a militant organization known as Junjaweed came onto the scene. The Junjaweed conduct their business with a sort of "scorched earth" policy, they go into villages... they raze the farmland and houses... they kill and torture the men, they rape and torture the women amd children. They destroy everything in their path. And they are endorsed by the Sudanese government making them (with the absence of any sort of international pressure) a very evil force to be reckoned with.

The Junjaweed (above)


This is the trigger for the refugee crisis. Of the 700,000 that weren't systematically wiped out (based on ethnic reasons... a.k.a genocide) 2 million displaced people have fled their homes for fear of facing the same horrific consequences of staying that many of their fellow countrymen have endured. Not only are these refugees surviving in the most barren living standards, but this has the potential to displace the entire region with Chad's resources being stretched to the very limit and widespread famine and poverty.







Forgive me for the horrendous images. Unfortunetly the perils this starving girl is facing have become the norm for Sudanese refugees.



So why? Why the hell is this happening? Have we not learnt from our mistakes? Do the United Nations not still feel the sting of guilt when they think of Rwanda? Is the US still incapable of defining genocide (in 2004 Bush made a comment on the situation claiming that there was evidence of "acts of genocide")




Though little explanation barely seems justified, there are a few factors involved in the apathy of the international community. The UN has always been concerned with the North and South conflict of Sudan and are hesitant to focus their attentions away from the progress they are making. Though the government has been "urged" (strong words from the Security Council) to de-militarise the region, the Junjaweed is essentially a government endorsed organisation so the Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir has no intention of halting their behvaiour. Of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, China and Russia are afraid to jeopardise an oil trading partner and the United States are concerned with the war on terror so within the United Nations there is a lack of political will to seriously address the problem.

The African Union is the only organization (apart from our very own politically conscious George Clooney) that has taken on the issue, but this mission (AMIS) is desperately underfunded and under resourced. Only now, in the last two years has the UN produced a mandate that seriously considers the plight of Darfur... but it is early days yet, and we are yet to see a result.

It's nothing short of bitterly disappointing that after Rwanda, when Kofi Annan famously came out and said "Never Again" in regards to genocide in any given country that history could be repeating itself in such a fierce form.

For those of you who start those facebook groups and create those videos in an attempt to move against the suffocating apathy we are surrounded by, I commend your efforts. But I sadly hold little optimism for the possibility that these small bursts of outrage can amount to anything tangible. Maybe a well coordinated protest movement involving all sectors of the population (think of the unionist movement in the case of East Timor) can pressure the government into action, but even then, no country has the resources nor the will to go it alone.

It is time, United Nations to put your money where your mouth is and start tackling some of these violations of humanity that you so desperately champion against.