There’s a beautiful piece in The Age today, which doesn’t seem to be online, about a school where almost all the children came from refugee families. A teacher asked children to bring in their favourite book from home. Most didn’t, and those that did produced very damaged copies – in one case only two pages were left.
The teacher put out a call for help, and was absolutely deluged in offers. Not only did people line up to hand over books they were no longer using, many dipped into their pockets (in one case to the tune of $2000) to buy new ones. The target has already been exceeded ten times over, and presumably this publicity will send it higher. Moreover, all sorts of other support is being offered – people with no connection to the school are offering to come in and read to the children, or construct containers for storing the books etc.
It’s all very inspiring in the way many films try to be, while being true and real and not-faked up at all.
I think it also provides an indication of how some of the problems we often see as intractable are anything but, if we can only find the right triggers for action.
This might seem a big claim. The responses have solved the immediate problem of a shortage of books in the children’s homes. We’ll have to wait quite a while to discover if they will solve the real issue of limited reading, let alone social disadvantage. And all this is just one school – there are hundreds across Australia with similar problems, along with thousands of individual students at schools where the problem is less universal.
It’s a big leap from this to saying we can beat Global Warming or war. However, I think the case that these problems are soluble with enough commitment has been made adequately elsewhere. The question has always been “is that commitment achievable?” Examples like this indicate the answer is yes if we can find the right triggers.
Something about this case caused people to take the steps required to fix the problem. The efforts they made are not all that much smaller (and in the case of the $2000 donor not smaller at all) than that required to solve the world’s macro problems. Of course only a minority of those who received the plea for help acted. Maybe there’s a finite number of people who will ever step up to the plate, but I’d like to think not. Some of those who gave to this cause were probably the usual suspects – the same people on Oxfam’s regular donor list and volunteers for all sorts of causes.
But I doubt it. I’ll bet some were people who don’t give a lot the rest of the time. This appeal touched them, they saw the problem as being manageable, and they did something.
It’s the reason for the slogan “think global, act local”. Most people find it difficult to relate to global problems, or those too big to be solved through individual action. The solution, at least sometimes, is to break the problem down into manageable parts – often based on geography – and get people to deal with these. An appeal for books to solve the problem of children growing up without them in the home, without the specific manageable case of a single rather small school, would probably have produced much less of a response.
This is one of the less acknowledged reasons why those who argue Australia shouldn’t “take the lead” on fighting Climate Change because we only produce 2% of the problem are talking utter horseshit. It’s not just that this approach would have seen us stay out of both World Wars (desirable as that may have been in the first case) or individuals refuse to pay taxes if even some others are evading.
It’s that its only by breaking the problem down to more manageable scale we can get it addressed at all. My suburb only produces 0.0001% of the worlds Greenhouse Gasses. However, making it carbon neutral is a goal that might inspire people in a way that zero national emissions might not – it’s possible to imagine it happening and one person making a difference to it.
If we can make examples like this attractive we might be on the path to putting together the pieces to get the whole jig saw fixed.
Showing posts with label optimism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label optimism. Show all posts
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Pop Stops War
As I type this the Eurovision Song Contest is playing in the background. It was easy to stop watching - Norway is so far ahead in the voting its hard to imagine anything will change.
A lot of Europeans cringe at the mention of the contest. The music is often so bad, the lyrics so unoriginal, the emotion so fake that's all pretty understandable. But in Australia its treated as high camp - hugely popular in the Gay and Lesbian community and ironic inner city inhabitants who wouldn't be seen dead at this sort of music the rest of the year. If I'd slept more last night I might be at a fundraiser where you could watch it on the big screen.
But whether you love or hate the clothes, music and presenters, its worth spending just a minute to consider the real benefit of the event. It was created in the 1950s, when Europe was desperately searching for a way to prevent another war. The European Union was the most important product of this search, along with the court of human rights and other bodies that managed to pull in even more of the continent's nations. Besides these Eurovision might seem pretty trivial. But it is all a part of the process of building a common European identity. The hope was that the more one saw of another nation's culture, the less likely you were to invade.
Modern technology and the fall of the Wall has given the whole project a renewed lease of life. Western Europe doesn't need it any more, and aside from the Scandinavians they don't much care either. But for Eastern Europe, so recently at war and with unresolved conflicts still to be address, anything that instills fondness for the neighbours has value. The fact that everyone gets to vote these days is important too - when you've just voted for Bosnia to win the contest you probably don't feel so much like bombing them back to the Stone Age. It's even better if they've just given you 12 points - but even 5 or 6 will do.
It's hard to prove that Eurovision works. It's a pretty flimsy basis for continental peace after all. But these things build up. Once Europe was in a continuous state of war. Peace for any nation was a temporary aberration, and for the whole place to be free of war at once was almost unimaginable. Last year, when Russia and Georgia went to war, the first conflict anywhere west of the Urals for 9 years, it was like an event from another era. Which in fact it was.
You may, like me, think that the Norwegian entry was so boring it ranks as three minutes of your life you'll never get back. But spend some time in the cemeteries of Flanders if you need to be reminded there are worse things than boredom.
A lot of Europeans cringe at the mention of the contest. The music is often so bad, the lyrics so unoriginal, the emotion so fake that's all pretty understandable. But in Australia its treated as high camp - hugely popular in the Gay and Lesbian community and ironic inner city inhabitants who wouldn't be seen dead at this sort of music the rest of the year. If I'd slept more last night I might be at a fundraiser where you could watch it on the big screen.
But whether you love or hate the clothes, music and presenters, its worth spending just a minute to consider the real benefit of the event. It was created in the 1950s, when Europe was desperately searching for a way to prevent another war. The European Union was the most important product of this search, along with the court of human rights and other bodies that managed to pull in even more of the continent's nations. Besides these Eurovision might seem pretty trivial. But it is all a part of the process of building a common European identity. The hope was that the more one saw of another nation's culture, the less likely you were to invade.
Modern technology and the fall of the Wall has given the whole project a renewed lease of life. Western Europe doesn't need it any more, and aside from the Scandinavians they don't much care either. But for Eastern Europe, so recently at war and with unresolved conflicts still to be address, anything that instills fondness for the neighbours has value. The fact that everyone gets to vote these days is important too - when you've just voted for Bosnia to win the contest you probably don't feel so much like bombing them back to the Stone Age. It's even better if they've just given you 12 points - but even 5 or 6 will do.
It's hard to prove that Eurovision works. It's a pretty flimsy basis for continental peace after all. But these things build up. Once Europe was in a continuous state of war. Peace for any nation was a temporary aberration, and for the whole place to be free of war at once was almost unimaginable. Last year, when Russia and Georgia went to war, the first conflict anywhere west of the Urals for 9 years, it was like an event from another era. Which in fact it was.
You may, like me, think that the Norwegian entry was so boring it ranks as three minutes of your life you'll never get back. But spend some time in the cemeteries of Flanders if you need to be reminded there are worse things than boredom.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
The Demise of Family First
After the last election Kim at Larvateus Prodeo joyfully announced that Family First's poor result was finished. I considered it to early to be so sure. In many ways the FF position in 2007 mirrored that of the Greens in 1998. Similar vote, each party left with one ongoing Senator.
The Australian Greens had 2 state MPs and one member in the ACT assembly at this point, while Family First has two in South Australia. Granted the WA Greens, technically a separate party had 3 state MPs. However, the Christian Democrats are almost as closely aligned with Family First as the two Green parties were, and they've got two members in the NSW Legislative Council. All up the situations look pretty comparable.
Given the subsequent rise of the Greens I wasn't confident Family First were dead.
However, circumstances have changed.
Post 98 the Greens needed some wins, and they got them. First electing avid Risstrom to Melbourne City Council (not only the first Green Party local councilor in Victoria, but to the most prestigious and powerful council). Then Lee Rhiannon was elected to the NSW Upper House. Some good by-election results (along with some bad ones) kept things rolling along until WA added another couple of state MPs and Queensland got a big swing at the 2001 election. All this before Tampa.
Family First's situation has been the opposite. They didn't run in the ACT or NT elections, did badly in WA and failed to make much impact at the various by-elections.
Now the Queensland result has been devastating. In 2006 Family First got over 4% in almost every seat they contested in Queensland, and broke 10% in two. This time they are currently above 4% in four seats (although to be fair they will probably creep over in two more). No result is above 5%.
Let's acknowledge two things. Firstly it was a harder election for them. There were more independents running than last time, the Daylight Saving Party gave a bit of competition in the South-East and they had a Green in every seat (last time their best results were where Greens didn't run). A close election also usually makes it harder for smaller parties.
On top of this Family First no doubt knew they couldn't win anywhere and would not have tried that hard.
Still, all that taken into account this is a terrible result for them. They've been outvoted by the Daylight Saving mob, on totals if not averages. They've dropped totally off the radar at a time when their Senator's profile has never been higher. They've demonstrated they have no serious party machine in Queensland and should not be taken seriously as able to deliver on preference deals.
Prior to the next federal election there are two more state polls: Tasmania and South Australia. Family First didn't run in the last Tasmanian poll, and I don't expect to see them contest this one. In South Australia they will probably hold the seat that is up for re-election, but unless they can go forwards in a big way they will be entering the federal election at a very low ebb. A half senate election will see them wiped out, with the two SA state MPs hanging on as a strange reminder of times past.
I have argued elsewhere that in a Double Dissolution they have a chance of winning a seat or two, and I still think this is correct. However, even this will just delay the inevitable, since they will certainly be short term Senators.
I think we can now be pretty confident right-wing religious influence in our parliament will soon be confined to the ranks of the major parties.
The Australian Greens had 2 state MPs and one member in the ACT assembly at this point, while Family First has two in South Australia. Granted the WA Greens, technically a separate party had 3 state MPs. However, the Christian Democrats are almost as closely aligned with Family First as the two Green parties were, and they've got two members in the NSW Legislative Council. All up the situations look pretty comparable.
Given the subsequent rise of the Greens I wasn't confident Family First were dead.
However, circumstances have changed.
Post 98 the Greens needed some wins, and they got them. First electing avid Risstrom to Melbourne City Council (not only the first Green Party local councilor in Victoria, but to the most prestigious and powerful council). Then Lee Rhiannon was elected to the NSW Upper House. Some good by-election results (along with some bad ones) kept things rolling along until WA added another couple of state MPs and Queensland got a big swing at the 2001 election. All this before Tampa.
Family First's situation has been the opposite. They didn't run in the ACT or NT elections, did badly in WA and failed to make much impact at the various by-elections.
Now the Queensland result has been devastating. In 2006 Family First got over 4% in almost every seat they contested in Queensland, and broke 10% in two. This time they are currently above 4% in four seats (although to be fair they will probably creep over in two more). No result is above 5%.
Let's acknowledge two things. Firstly it was a harder election for them. There were more independents running than last time, the Daylight Saving Party gave a bit of competition in the South-East and they had a Green in every seat (last time their best results were where Greens didn't run). A close election also usually makes it harder for smaller parties.
On top of this Family First no doubt knew they couldn't win anywhere and would not have tried that hard.
Still, all that taken into account this is a terrible result for them. They've been outvoted by the Daylight Saving mob, on totals if not averages. They've dropped totally off the radar at a time when their Senator's profile has never been higher. They've demonstrated they have no serious party machine in Queensland and should not be taken seriously as able to deliver on preference deals.
Prior to the next federal election there are two more state polls: Tasmania and South Australia. Family First didn't run in the last Tasmanian poll, and I don't expect to see them contest this one. In South Australia they will probably hold the seat that is up for re-election, but unless they can go forwards in a big way they will be entering the federal election at a very low ebb. A half senate election will see them wiped out, with the two SA state MPs hanging on as a strange reminder of times past.
I have argued elsewhere that in a Double Dissolution they have a chance of winning a seat or two, and I still think this is correct. However, even this will just delay the inevitable, since they will certainly be short term Senators.
I think we can now be pretty confident right-wing religious influence in our parliament will soon be confined to the ranks of the major parties.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Do Nuclear Weapons Reductions Matter?
Inspired as I was by Obama's campaign, and his inauguration speech, I've had my heart broken by politicians too many times before, so I've felt plenty of caution as well. His appointments have been mixed. Some great, some terrible.
In terms of the moves he has made so far, they've mostly been good, but not surprising. Removing the global gag rule was wonderful, but we all knew he'd do it. Clinton did the same thing. But there are two things he's done that have given me hope that here we have someone more FDR than WJC.
The first is the more even-handed rhetoric on the Middle East, and the appointment of George Mitchell. I'm pessimistic this will work, but its great to see him trying. Even more exciting is the proposal to slash nuclear weapons by 80%, with the sweetner to the Russians of an abandonment of the missile defense shield on their borders.
Pretty much anyone who values peace will think this is a good thing, but I suspect most people will see it as a fairly small move. Cutting nuclear weapons on each side from 5000 to 1000 still gives us the capacity to wipe out civilization and cause suffering on an unprecedented scale. If the other 4000 bombs were (literally) overkill, does it really help if we get rid of them?
I'd argue yes, for several reasons. Combined these make the proposal a huge step forward.
1. Every weapon is a danger. It can be stolen, misfired or the vehicle carrying it could be in a crash. The US has had several near-misses. I'd imagine the Russians have had more so. Getting rid of 80% cuts this risk by 4/5ths. Probably more, since the remainder will be better guarded.
2. The message it sends to the world is very potent. Bush's pause on weapons reductions has legitimated the quest for nukes by Iran and North Korea and the expansion of India and Pakistan's programs. Demonstrating that grown-ups get rid of weapons, not add to them, is an invaluable message. Particularly to those nations that are at least partially democratic.
3. Should the worst happen and we really do have an all out nuclear war 1000 bombs on each side is enough to destroy the world. But there's a lot of evidence that in this circumstance quite a large proportion of the bombs won't go off. The technology will fail, or the human operators will resist. A few hundred bombs from each side would still add up to more deaths than from all the wars in history combined, but there might be something left to rebuild. Five times as many - no way.
4. The missile defense shield Obama is offering to give up in the deal is a destabilizing influence. Getting rid of it bolsters the chance of peace.
5. Keeping nukes is expensive. Building the defense shield much more so. The money saved will be very, very useful elsewhere.
6. Nuclear weapons contain highly enriched uranium, or plutonium. When they are decommissioned this is burnt in nuclear reactors. In the process there is less need to dig up new uranium. Since uranium from the ground has only 0.7% U235, while bombs are mostly 235 one bomb will power a lot of power stations for a long time. Avoiding digging up all that uranium is good for the environment, and for the indigenous people on whose land many of the mines sit. It also means there is a lot less depleted uranium sitting around waiting to be used. And the uses DU is put to are generally pretty nasty.
7. If you want to get to zero nuclear weapons, you have to go through the stage of having 1000 first. Obama may not be able to take us down entirely, but this move can pave the way for his successors, if they wish to follow through.
Of course the plan may fail. If Putin won't come to the party then Obama isn't likely to get rid of the bombs unilaterally. But even if that happens we still get something good out of the whole thing. Putin's ethical bankruptcy is exposed to the world, and the global population still sees Obama showing real leadership, which may encourage them to demand the same thing from their leaders.
All in all, I think its really good news.
In terms of the moves he has made so far, they've mostly been good, but not surprising. Removing the global gag rule was wonderful, but we all knew he'd do it. Clinton did the same thing. But there are two things he's done that have given me hope that here we have someone more FDR than WJC.
The first is the more even-handed rhetoric on the Middle East, and the appointment of George Mitchell. I'm pessimistic this will work, but its great to see him trying. Even more exciting is the proposal to slash nuclear weapons by 80%, with the sweetner to the Russians of an abandonment of the missile defense shield on their borders.
Pretty much anyone who values peace will think this is a good thing, but I suspect most people will see it as a fairly small move. Cutting nuclear weapons on each side from 5000 to 1000 still gives us the capacity to wipe out civilization and cause suffering on an unprecedented scale. If the other 4000 bombs were (literally) overkill, does it really help if we get rid of them?
I'd argue yes, for several reasons. Combined these make the proposal a huge step forward.
1. Every weapon is a danger. It can be stolen, misfired or the vehicle carrying it could be in a crash. The US has had several near-misses. I'd imagine the Russians have had more so. Getting rid of 80% cuts this risk by 4/5ths. Probably more, since the remainder will be better guarded.
2. The message it sends to the world is very potent. Bush's pause on weapons reductions has legitimated the quest for nukes by Iran and North Korea and the expansion of India and Pakistan's programs. Demonstrating that grown-ups get rid of weapons, not add to them, is an invaluable message. Particularly to those nations that are at least partially democratic.
3. Should the worst happen and we really do have an all out nuclear war 1000 bombs on each side is enough to destroy the world. But there's a lot of evidence that in this circumstance quite a large proportion of the bombs won't go off. The technology will fail, or the human operators will resist. A few hundred bombs from each side would still add up to more deaths than from all the wars in history combined, but there might be something left to rebuild. Five times as many - no way.
4. The missile defense shield Obama is offering to give up in the deal is a destabilizing influence. Getting rid of it bolsters the chance of peace.
5. Keeping nukes is expensive. Building the defense shield much more so. The money saved will be very, very useful elsewhere.
6. Nuclear weapons contain highly enriched uranium, or plutonium. When they are decommissioned this is burnt in nuclear reactors. In the process there is less need to dig up new uranium. Since uranium from the ground has only 0.7% U235, while bombs are mostly 235 one bomb will power a lot of power stations for a long time. Avoiding digging up all that uranium is good for the environment, and for the indigenous people on whose land many of the mines sit. It also means there is a lot less depleted uranium sitting around waiting to be used. And the uses DU is put to are generally pretty nasty.
7. If you want to get to zero nuclear weapons, you have to go through the stage of having 1000 first. Obama may not be able to take us down entirely, but this move can pave the way for his successors, if they wish to follow through.
Of course the plan may fail. If Putin won't come to the party then Obama isn't likely to get rid of the bombs unilaterally. But even if that happens we still get something good out of the whole thing. Putin's ethical bankruptcy is exposed to the world, and the global population still sees Obama showing real leadership, which may encourage them to demand the same thing from their leaders.
All in all, I think its really good news.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
How Moving Are These?
Of all the areas on which one might hope the US President would work for change, the Middle East was perhaps the one that inspired least optimism, at least in me. I figured that Obama would be too scared to take on the more hardline Israeli partisans, given the "broken alliance" between American Jews and blacks, and the pressure of the republican rumours on his religion. It certainly seemed that way during the campaign and the period between election and inauguration.
But his words since then inspire hope even here. I've been a strong supporter of Israel since I was a child, but the behaviour of its governments in recent years make clear that for its own good, as well as that of the Palestinians, it needs a president who can pull it into line. If Obama can do that, what can't he do?
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The Compulsory Inauguration Post
I didn't want to just be repeating what everyone else was saying, so I wasn't initially going to post on the inauguration. However, there are so many rich gems in this event I don't see any harm in holding them up to the light to catch yet another glint.
One point that has been made before is that Obama's heritage is about more than being black. When he was born it was still illegal for black men to marry white women in quite a few states. His election isn't just going to mark a breakthrough for blacks, its going to make what used to be called miscegenation completely legitimate, indeed actually cool.
I was reminded how significant this is when something triggered a memory of the sitcom CBS "Kate and Allie", about two single mothers who move in together. In one episode one of the characters finds herself at the dentist when the lights go out, combining her two worst phobias. She's talked through her fears by a charming sounding man, who eventually she asks out. He's doubtful, but agrees. Then the lights come on and it is clear he is black (and very good looking).
He warns her that they will experience racism going out together, but she initially thinks she'll cope. However, eventually she decides it is all too hard. When breaking it off with him she says, "You know my kids thought it was great we were seeing each other. Maybe soon it won't matter." I was surprised when I saw this episode. This was the late 80s. In Greenwich Village. Surely such things were now the province of Deliverance country?
The actors who played Kate and Allie's kids would be past thirty now, too old even to have been the shocktroops of Obama's campaign. But they're part of the generation that did this. And their children won't understand the episode at all.
Update: I looked up the show on Wikipedia and discovered that one of the kids went onto play Leo's daughter Mallory in The West Wing. How sweet is that?
One point that has been made before is that Obama's heritage is about more than being black. When he was born it was still illegal for black men to marry white women in quite a few states. His election isn't just going to mark a breakthrough for blacks, its going to make what used to be called miscegenation completely legitimate, indeed actually cool.
I was reminded how significant this is when something triggered a memory of the sitcom CBS "Kate and Allie", about two single mothers who move in together. In one episode one of the characters finds herself at the dentist when the lights go out, combining her two worst phobias. She's talked through her fears by a charming sounding man, who eventually she asks out. He's doubtful, but agrees. Then the lights come on and it is clear he is black (and very good looking).
He warns her that they will experience racism going out together, but she initially thinks she'll cope. However, eventually she decides it is all too hard. When breaking it off with him she says, "You know my kids thought it was great we were seeing each other. Maybe soon it won't matter." I was surprised when I saw this episode. This was the late 80s. In Greenwich Village. Surely such things were now the province of Deliverance country?
The actors who played Kate and Allie's kids would be past thirty now, too old even to have been the shocktroops of Obama's campaign. But they're part of the generation that did this. And their children won't understand the episode at all.
Update: I looked up the show on Wikipedia and discovered that one of the kids went onto play Leo's daughter Mallory in The West Wing. How sweet is that?
Friday, January 9, 2009
Welcome Back to the Fold, Bangladesh
If it bleeds it leads, so all the attention over the summer break has been on the horrors in Gaza. I don't wish to minimize either the tragedy of a thousand lost lives, nor the damage this is doing to the rest of the Middle East, but in the process something much more important has been missed. Something good.
Bangladesh held a democratic election on December 29. There was not a lot of violence, international monitors judged it free and fair. The better of the two coalitions won, but that's almost incidental - there isn't as much difference between the two parties as one would like. The important thing is that the will of the people was expressed. Oh, and there is a woman Prime Minister. Again. It's been that way for most of the last 20 years.
Bangladesh has 150 million people, the seventh most of any country on Earth, so what happens there matters. It's desperately poor, had a horrific 20 years under Pakistani rule after independence from Britain, followed by another horrific 20 years of coups and warfare. It is more threatened by Global Warming than any other large nation, both in the form of rising sea levels, and from increased pulsing of water from the Himalayas if glaciers cease to store the winter rains.
But for all that there is hope. For almost 20 years it has had substantial economic growth and falling poverty. It's once appallingly high fertility rate is down to 3.1 (although this is a small increase on 2000 figures). Provided it can hold onto a democratic culture it may survive the ravages ahead in some sort of reasonable shape.
However, in early 2007 things got a bit shaky. After three democratic elections (in which power changed each time) the polls were postponed indefinitely. Bangladesh has a unique system where a caretaker government steps in for three months every five years to run the country while the elections are held, to prevent the incumbents rigging things. Not a bad idea in theory, but this time the caretakers kept extending their term, arguing that things weren't ready. Leaders of both major parties were arrested. A coup looked a real danger.
But now the elections have been held, the somewhat more left-wing Awami League and their allies won an overwhelming victory, and it looks like everything will go back to normal.
It's great news for the local population, but also for the world at large. The proportion of the world living in functioning (albeit imperfect) democracies has been increasing at least since the mid 80s, with a huge surge when Eastern Europe was freed from Soviet domination around the same time Bangladesh, Chile and several Central American countries had their first fair elections for quite a while.
It's getting to the point where the only non-democracies other than China and Vietnam are in Africa and the Middle East, and the recent election in Ghana shows there is progress there as well. If there is not significant backsliding, and we can keep picking up a democracy here and there we may soon get to a point where being anything other than democratic is so frowned on it becomes unsustainable.
But the "if" in the last sentence is a big one. Russia has lost so many of the key features of a democracy it is doubtful it still deserves the term. Mexico, Thailand and Indonesia are shaky, as are quite a few smaller countries. Losing Bangladesh from the fold could have been the start of an avalanche.
Instead, we have the situation where the four largest Muslim majority nations all have democratically elected governments, surely a first. Neither Pakistan nor Nigeria have the ongoing record that would allow one to call them democracies, but the idea that Islam and fair elections are incompatible is looking very hard to defend.
Bangladesh held a democratic election on December 29. There was not a lot of violence, international monitors judged it free and fair. The better of the two coalitions won, but that's almost incidental - there isn't as much difference between the two parties as one would like. The important thing is that the will of the people was expressed. Oh, and there is a woman Prime Minister. Again. It's been that way for most of the last 20 years.
Bangladesh has 150 million people, the seventh most of any country on Earth, so what happens there matters. It's desperately poor, had a horrific 20 years under Pakistani rule after independence from Britain, followed by another horrific 20 years of coups and warfare. It is more threatened by Global Warming than any other large nation, both in the form of rising sea levels, and from increased pulsing of water from the Himalayas if glaciers cease to store the winter rains.
But for all that there is hope. For almost 20 years it has had substantial economic growth and falling poverty. It's once appallingly high fertility rate is down to 3.1 (although this is a small increase on 2000 figures). Provided it can hold onto a democratic culture it may survive the ravages ahead in some sort of reasonable shape.
However, in early 2007 things got a bit shaky. After three democratic elections (in which power changed each time) the polls were postponed indefinitely. Bangladesh has a unique system where a caretaker government steps in for three months every five years to run the country while the elections are held, to prevent the incumbents rigging things. Not a bad idea in theory, but this time the caretakers kept extending their term, arguing that things weren't ready. Leaders of both major parties were arrested. A coup looked a real danger.
But now the elections have been held, the somewhat more left-wing Awami League and their allies won an overwhelming victory, and it looks like everything will go back to normal.
It's great news for the local population, but also for the world at large. The proportion of the world living in functioning (albeit imperfect) democracies has been increasing at least since the mid 80s, with a huge surge when Eastern Europe was freed from Soviet domination around the same time Bangladesh, Chile and several Central American countries had their first fair elections for quite a while.
It's getting to the point where the only non-democracies other than China and Vietnam are in Africa and the Middle East, and the recent election in Ghana shows there is progress there as well. If there is not significant backsliding, and we can keep picking up a democracy here and there we may soon get to a point where being anything other than democratic is so frowned on it becomes unsustainable.
But the "if" in the last sentence is a big one. Russia has lost so many of the key features of a democracy it is doubtful it still deserves the term. Mexico, Thailand and Indonesia are shaky, as are quite a few smaller countries. Losing Bangladesh from the fold could have been the start of an avalanche.
Instead, we have the situation where the four largest Muslim majority nations all have democratically elected governments, surely a first. Neither Pakistan nor Nigeria have the ongoing record that would allow one to call them democracies, but the idea that Islam and fair elections are incompatible is looking very hard to defend.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
The Year To End All Wars
Mark 2068 in your diaries. It’s the year humanity will achieve its crowning glory – an end to war.
• We have a general tendency to think bad news is increasing, even when it is not
• Wars are now more reported than ever before, so we hear about atrocities in far off lands of which we know little.
• The wars that are occurring may well be becoming more bloody – at least in absolute terms – which creates a perception there are more of them.
There is no doubt new technology is allowing killing on a greater scale than ever before, and as the world’s population grows it is to be expected that death tolls will rise.
But the happier side of the coin is that the number of wars in the world is on the decline, and has been for quite a while. My very rough estimate is that every three years two wars are ended and one new one starts. A slightly less rough assessment is that there are 20 wars in the world today. On this basis it will take 60 years to end war entirely, thus the date above.
Now there are many, many things one can quibble over in these figures. The definition of war is not that easy, as is defining when many conflicts start and finish.. I’m sure I’ve also left out a few wars from the table below, and would be grateful for corrections (although of course I’d prefer that there are no more horrors to confront) I’ve put my definitions at the bottom. Feel freed to disagree with them, but I’m fairly confident that on almost any consistent definition you can use my broad conclusion is robust – the number of wars in the world is in long term decline.
The obvious fly in this ointment is that environmental degradation increases conflict and will lead to more wars. Already the Dafur conflict may well have been caused, at least in part, by desertification of the Sahel.
But against this there is the fact that wars tend to breed more wars, and peace breeds more peace. Conflicts on a nation’s borders lead to destabilisation, most clearly seen in the way civil war in Liberia engulfed surrounding nations. On the other hand, the more countries there are that are free of wars the more support there is for the humanitarian and peace-keeping missions, as well as the trade sanctions and moral pressure which collectively have contributed to ending quite a few of the world’s conflicts.
I think we’re in a race, to get the number of wars in the world down to the point where virtuous circles take over and war is put behind us like smallpox before global warming fans the embers of an unstoppable number of blazes.
I’m far from certain we’ll win this race, but there is a much better chance than most people realise that we might.
Nation’s experiencing wars[1] begun since 1993 (5)
DRC
Dafur
South Ossetia/Abkhazia[2]
Iraq
Ivory Coast
Nations whose experience of war stopped since 1993 (12)
Aceh
Algeria
Angola
Bosnia
Bougainville
Djibouti
East Timor
Guatemala
Liberia
Northern Ireland
Peru
Sierra Leone
Nations experiencing continuing wars (15)
Afghanistan
Burma
Casmance
Chad
Columbia
Eritrea
Israel/Palestine
Kurdish Turkey
Lebanon
Mindanao
Niger Delta
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Uganda
West Papua
Wars that started and ended between 1993 and 2008 (7)
Burundi
Chechnya
Guinea-Bissau
Kosovo/Servbia
Nagorno-Karabakh
Nepal
Rwanda
I’ve chosen 1993 as the starting point because it gives us as long a timeline as possible while still avoiding the events surrounding the ending of the Cold War, which stopped quite a few conflicts, while starting several others. If you take the starting period back to 1983 you’ll find the ratio of wars ended to wars begun is even more promising.
There are also a couple of wars I’ve found difficult to classify. Officially the war in South Sudan is over, but I’m not confident enough to put it in the second column. I’m also not sure whether Pakistan belongs in the first or the third column or should not be listed at all since it is more a powderkeg than an active war. The South Thailand insurgency is another puzzle – it started well before the era, but has spiked since 2004.
On these numbers we’re actually doing slightly better than my estimate, but several of the wars that have been brought to a close were quite small, so I’ll round down.
If I’m right, by 2023 we should have ended around ten of the current wars, although five new ones will have started. This doesn’t strike me as incredible at all. Certainly some of the wars listed in columns 1 and 3 look intractable (it’d be a braver blogger than I who predicted the end to the Israel/Palestine conflict, or peace in Somalia). However, many of these look like they could come to an end a good deal earlier. The peace treaty for Mindanao was defeated on an 8-7 vote. The Columbian FARQ and the LRA in Uganda look close to collapse and I’m pretty confident South Ossetia and Abkhazia will end up as peaceful independent states. It’s quite likely historians will judge that war already over.
It’s true three of the new wars are a whole lot bloodier than the ones that have come to an end, but if we can get the number of active conflicts in the world into single figures I think we’ll see fresh enthusiasm for positive global intervention.
And just think – if we could cut the number of wars in the world by a fifth in a period where George W Bush was president, imagine what’s possible when we actually have a president desirous of peace.
[1]I use the term “Nation’s experiencing war” to refer to situations where a political conflict is killing more than 1 person per hundred thousand per year. I think its important to look at the actual costs, rather than whether war has been officially declared. Of course the cost of war is measured in injuries and economic damage as well, but deaths per head of population are easier to measure and seem a pretty good starting point. The rate of 1/100,000 is completely arbitrary. However, as I have said I think the general conclusion stands up whether you use a higher or lower rate as long as one is consistent.
I have excluded from this definition cases such as Zimbabwe where a government is killing large numbers of its people, but the killing pretty much all goes one way. Whatever this should be called, I don’t think it is war. It’s pretty easy to demonstrate however, that atrocities of this form are also in long term decline – another reason for optimism.
A more difficult exclusion is conflicts that are not based on national or religious feeling, or political ideology, cf the Mexican battles over control of the drug trade. I’ve left these out because they’re harder to track, but also because, horrific as they may be, the death rate is usually lower than “proper” wars.
[2]The conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia are so linked in cause and likely outcome I am counting them as one. Even combined, the death toll is still one of the lowest on the list.
OK, I’m not actually serious with that. The date is based on a calculation so rough it barely deserves the name, but I’m trying to make a serious point. Unlikely as it may seem, we are on target to end perhaps the greatest blight on human happiness in history, and in the life time of some people alive today.
• We have a general tendency to think bad news is increasing, even when it is not
• Wars are now more reported than ever before, so we hear about atrocities in far off lands of which we know little.
• The wars that are occurring may well be becoming more bloody – at least in absolute terms – which creates a perception there are more of them.
There is no doubt new technology is allowing killing on a greater scale than ever before, and as the world’s population grows it is to be expected that death tolls will rise.
But the happier side of the coin is that the number of wars in the world is on the decline, and has been for quite a while. My very rough estimate is that every three years two wars are ended and one new one starts. A slightly less rough assessment is that there are 20 wars in the world today. On this basis it will take 60 years to end war entirely, thus the date above.
Now there are many, many things one can quibble over in these figures. The definition of war is not that easy, as is defining when many conflicts start and finish.. I’m sure I’ve also left out a few wars from the table below, and would be grateful for corrections (although of course I’d prefer that there are no more horrors to confront) I’ve put my definitions at the bottom. Feel freed to disagree with them, but I’m fairly confident that on almost any consistent definition you can use my broad conclusion is robust – the number of wars in the world is in long term decline.
The obvious fly in this ointment is that environmental degradation increases conflict and will lead to more wars. Already the Dafur conflict may well have been caused, at least in part, by desertification of the Sahel.
But against this there is the fact that wars tend to breed more wars, and peace breeds more peace. Conflicts on a nation’s borders lead to destabilisation, most clearly seen in the way civil war in Liberia engulfed surrounding nations. On the other hand, the more countries there are that are free of wars the more support there is for the humanitarian and peace-keeping missions, as well as the trade sanctions and moral pressure which collectively have contributed to ending quite a few of the world’s conflicts.
I think we’re in a race, to get the number of wars in the world down to the point where virtuous circles take over and war is put behind us like smallpox before global warming fans the embers of an unstoppable number of blazes.
I’m far from certain we’ll win this race, but there is a much better chance than most people realise that we might.
Nation’s experiencing wars[1] begun since 1993 (5)
DRC
Dafur
South Ossetia/Abkhazia[2]
Iraq
Ivory Coast
Nations whose experience of war stopped since 1993 (12)
Aceh
Algeria
Angola
Bosnia
Bougainville
Djibouti
East Timor
Guatemala
Liberia
Northern Ireland
Peru
Sierra Leone
Nations experiencing continuing wars (15)
Afghanistan
Burma
Casmance
Chad
Columbia
Eritrea
Israel/Palestine
Kurdish Turkey
Lebanon
Mindanao
Niger Delta
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Uganda
West Papua
Wars that started and ended between 1993 and 2008 (7)
Burundi
Chechnya
Guinea-Bissau
Kosovo/Servbia
Nagorno-Karabakh
Nepal
Rwanda
I’ve chosen 1993 as the starting point because it gives us as long a timeline as possible while still avoiding the events surrounding the ending of the Cold War, which stopped quite a few conflicts, while starting several others. If you take the starting period back to 1983 you’ll find the ratio of wars ended to wars begun is even more promising.
There are also a couple of wars I’ve found difficult to classify. Officially the war in South Sudan is over, but I’m not confident enough to put it in the second column. I’m also not sure whether Pakistan belongs in the first or the third column or should not be listed at all since it is more a powderkeg than an active war. The South Thailand insurgency is another puzzle – it started well before the era, but has spiked since 2004.
On these numbers we’re actually doing slightly better than my estimate, but several of the wars that have been brought to a close were quite small, so I’ll round down.
If I’m right, by 2023 we should have ended around ten of the current wars, although five new ones will have started. This doesn’t strike me as incredible at all. Certainly some of the wars listed in columns 1 and 3 look intractable (it’d be a braver blogger than I who predicted the end to the Israel/Palestine conflict, or peace in Somalia). However, many of these look like they could come to an end a good deal earlier. The peace treaty for Mindanao was defeated on an 8-7 vote. The Columbian FARQ and the LRA in Uganda look close to collapse and I’m pretty confident South Ossetia and Abkhazia will end up as peaceful independent states. It’s quite likely historians will judge that war already over.
It’s true three of the new wars are a whole lot bloodier than the ones that have come to an end, but if we can get the number of active conflicts in the world into single figures I think we’ll see fresh enthusiasm for positive global intervention.
And just think – if we could cut the number of wars in the world by a fifth in a period where George W Bush was president, imagine what’s possible when we actually have a president desirous of peace.
[1]I use the term “Nation’s experiencing war” to refer to situations where a political conflict is killing more than 1 person per hundred thousand per year. I think its important to look at the actual costs, rather than whether war has been officially declared. Of course the cost of war is measured in injuries and economic damage as well, but deaths per head of population are easier to measure and seem a pretty good starting point. The rate of 1/100,000 is completely arbitrary. However, as I have said I think the general conclusion stands up whether you use a higher or lower rate as long as one is consistent.
I have excluded from this definition cases such as Zimbabwe where a government is killing large numbers of its people, but the killing pretty much all goes one way. Whatever this should be called, I don’t think it is war. It’s pretty easy to demonstrate however, that atrocities of this form are also in long term decline – another reason for optimism.
A more difficult exclusion is conflicts that are not based on national or religious feeling, or political ideology, cf the Mexican battles over control of the drug trade. I’ve left these out because they’re harder to track, but also because, horrific as they may be, the death rate is usually lower than “proper” wars.
[2]The conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia are so linked in cause and likely outcome I am counting them as one. Even combined, the death toll is still one of the lowest on the list.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Good News From Switzerland
In Switzerland, over two-thirds of voters supported heroin provision to heavily addicted people. This is good news for those with a heroin problem, as the program saves lives, and it is also good news for the Swiss burghers who won't have their houses burgled as a result.
More importantly, it's good news for people in equivalent situations in a whole lot of countries. The overwhelming nature of the vote will send a message to jelly-backed politicians elsewhere. It is regrettable that a bill for legalization of cannabis went down at the same time, but in the long run I suspect the success will count for more than the defeat.
This is also very good news for the Greens. Personally I don't believe our policies are the major bar to electoral success. Lack of money and an absence of experience in government are bigger problems. Where our policies do get in the way its usually because they are badly written and need to be rethought.
However, there are some policies that do hurt our chances, and drugs and law and order are chief amongst them. The problem is that our policies here are basically right (give or take a bit of tweaking). They would save lives, cut crime and save money. We can't abandon them without selling our soul. Electorally they are a burden we have to bear, although of course writing them more clearly would reduce the damage.
So Switzerland's vote is very good news. For one thing it proves these are not policies the population will never accept. For another it gives us something to point to. Most people won't listen, but for a few, the fact that 68% of a developed nation backed something might make them question their knee-jerk opposition.
More to the point, this is a tide that will be very hard to hold back. Several other nations are considering adopting something similar. In a globalised world it will get harder and harder to scaremonger about a policy that not only exists in many comparable countries, but is demonstrably saving lives.
More importantly, it's good news for people in equivalent situations in a whole lot of countries. The overwhelming nature of the vote will send a message to jelly-backed politicians elsewhere. It is regrettable that a bill for legalization of cannabis went down at the same time, but in the long run I suspect the success will count for more than the defeat.
This is also very good news for the Greens. Personally I don't believe our policies are the major bar to electoral success. Lack of money and an absence of experience in government are bigger problems. Where our policies do get in the way its usually because they are badly written and need to be rethought.
However, there are some policies that do hurt our chances, and drugs and law and order are chief amongst them. The problem is that our policies here are basically right (give or take a bit of tweaking). They would save lives, cut crime and save money. We can't abandon them without selling our soul. Electorally they are a burden we have to bear, although of course writing them more clearly would reduce the damage.
So Switzerland's vote is very good news. For one thing it proves these are not policies the population will never accept. For another it gives us something to point to. Most people won't listen, but for a few, the fact that 68% of a developed nation backed something might make them question their knee-jerk opposition.
More to the point, this is a tide that will be very hard to hold back. Several other nations are considering adopting something similar. In a globalised world it will get harder and harder to scaremonger about a policy that not only exists in many comparable countries, but is demonstrably saving lives.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Victory
It's probably impossible to make any genuinely original contribution to one of the biggest stories of all time. So I'll leave it at this short note on one point I haven't seen made explicitly before or after the election:
Besides all the other reasons to celebrate, its worth noting that one of the hardest jobs in the world right now must be being an Al Queda recruiting agent, particularly in Africa. That has to be good for almost everyone.
Besides all the other reasons to celebrate, its worth noting that one of the hardest jobs in the world right now must be being an Al Queda recruiting agent, particularly in Africa. That has to be good for almost everyone.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
The Poor Will Not Be With You Always
Apparently it is Global Blog Action Day today, or something like that, and the theme for this year is poverty. So...
I doubt we will ever remove relative poverty. Certainly all attempts to create a sufficiently egalitarian society for this to be realistic have failed. But I think we can aspire to end absolute poverty. And since that would rank with ending war in the greatest human achievements of all time, it seems to me a pretty worthy goal.
And clearly this is achievable. Human productivity has risen so much over the last couple of centuries that there now certainly is enough for everyone to have adequate food, clean water, decent if spartan housing and basic medical cover. Yes all that and still enough for large sections of the world to live in unimaginable luxury.
Global Warming will make things much, much tougher, but science isn't going to stop. The productivity of the world, from an economic point of view, will slow, but its unlikely to go much backwards, even per head.
So ending poverty is all about willpower. We haven't done it because, collectively speaking, we simply don't care enough. The developed world giving 1% of its wealth to the poor would do it, just as the UN agreed on it back in 1970. (Note the agreed figure is 0.7% government aid, the rest is to come from private individuals. Indeed, the target is a lot easier to reach these days than it was back then. A goodly chunk of the rich world is now in China and India. The money doesn't even have to flow across national boundaries. The traditionally rich world needs to look after Africa and substantial sections of Asia and Latin America, but it no longer has to worry about the whole rest of the world.
It's true that local wars mean that some regions are resistant to anything the wealthy world can do, but that's actually a pretty small proportion of global poverty. The main thing that is needed now is good aid (not the stuff that ends up with the military and in politicians' pockets) and fair trade. And one of the main things stopping that from happening is the lack of belief that it can work. It really is a case of "nothing to fear but fear itself".
I think the most important thing to do is to keep the pressure on governments to increase aid, or at least not cut it in the face of the credit crunch. But private giving is important as well, and the wonders of the Internet mean you can do that without costing anything but your time.
Most famously. But one can do even better with the search engines that send their profits to charity rather than shareholders. Here or here. You can even feed the world by playing games online. It's true these online measures are a bit of a drop in the ocean. And in some cases the sponsors are other aid organisations, so in a sense the money is just going round in circles, unless they succeed in getting you to actually donate (or buy from their online stores). Which is why its important not to lose site of the main game of putting pressure on the politicians. But these websites do make a powerful point. The rich world is now so rich, credit crisis not withstanding, that it only takes a little of that wealth slopping over the sides to end absolute poverty. So little of the wealth in fact, that we wouldn't even miss it if it was gone.
I doubt we will ever remove relative poverty. Certainly all attempts to create a sufficiently egalitarian society for this to be realistic have failed. But I think we can aspire to end absolute poverty. And since that would rank with ending war in the greatest human achievements of all time, it seems to me a pretty worthy goal.
And clearly this is achievable. Human productivity has risen so much over the last couple of centuries that there now certainly is enough for everyone to have adequate food, clean water, decent if spartan housing and basic medical cover. Yes all that and still enough for large sections of the world to live in unimaginable luxury.
Global Warming will make things much, much tougher, but science isn't going to stop. The productivity of the world, from an economic point of view, will slow, but its unlikely to go much backwards, even per head.
So ending poverty is all about willpower. We haven't done it because, collectively speaking, we simply don't care enough. The developed world giving 1% of its wealth to the poor would do it, just as the UN agreed on it back in 1970. (Note the agreed figure is 0.7% government aid, the rest is to come from private individuals. Indeed, the target is a lot easier to reach these days than it was back then. A goodly chunk of the rich world is now in China and India. The money doesn't even have to flow across national boundaries. The traditionally rich world needs to look after Africa and substantial sections of Asia and Latin America, but it no longer has to worry about the whole rest of the world.
It's true that local wars mean that some regions are resistant to anything the wealthy world can do, but that's actually a pretty small proportion of global poverty. The main thing that is needed now is good aid (not the stuff that ends up with the military and in politicians' pockets) and fair trade. And one of the main things stopping that from happening is the lack of belief that it can work. It really is a case of "nothing to fear but fear itself".
I think the most important thing to do is to keep the pressure on governments to increase aid, or at least not cut it in the face of the credit crunch. But private giving is important as well, and the wonders of the Internet mean you can do that without costing anything but your time.
Most famously. But one can do even better with the search engines that send their profits to charity rather than shareholders. Here or here. You can even feed the world by playing games online. It's true these online measures are a bit of a drop in the ocean. And in some cases the sponsors are other aid organisations, so in a sense the money is just going round in circles, unless they succeed in getting you to actually donate (or buy from their online stores). Which is why its important not to lose site of the main game of putting pressure on the politicians. But these websites do make a powerful point. The rich world is now so rich, credit crisis not withstanding, that it only takes a little of that wealth slopping over the sides to end absolute poverty. So little of the wealth in fact, that we wouldn't even miss it if it was gone.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Playing For Peace
At the bottom of this post are links to two of the most inspiring articles I've read for a while. Australian readers may want to go straight there. Anyone from overseas might need a little background to make sense of them.
Australian Rules Football is an odd sport. Until about 30 years ago it was only really played in southern and north-western Australia, areas that include about half the national population. Americans sometimes describe it as a mix of basketball and soccer, although its more accurately a mix of soccer, rugby and a game played by the Indigenous population of Western Victoria. It's most similar modern sport is Gaelic football, which appears to be a derivative created by Irish gold diggers returning from the Victorian gold rush.
In the late 70s the people who ran the major leagues decided a little local game would not survive as more than a curiosity in the face of competition with global sports like rugby and what most of the world considers football. So they started an aggressive expansion campaign, joining up all the state-based leagues and making a push into the rugby playing north-east of Australia. Now they're moving on, trying to spark interest overseas.
Where this really gets interesting is that some of their expansion strategies have caused them to act in ways that are having some remarkable spin-offs. Football is something of a religion in many Aboriginal Indigenous communities, and the league realised that the skills of players from some of these areas form one of the game's greatest attractions. They've set up coaching programs in places that have been desperately under-resourced by the government. Children are only allowed to play if they attended school the previous week, and this has been the most successful program in Australian history in addressing truancy in remote communities.
More suprisingly, the league singled out South Africa as the best prospects for growth. They've approached schools in some of the poorest townships offering to supply sporting gear and administration money on the condition the schools teach Australian rules. For these schools battling parental unemployment over 50%, soaring rates of HIV and drastic underfunding this is a godsend. Some inspirational and hilarious stories have come out of this program.
One aspect of the international push is the creation of an international cup for all nations playing our rules other than Australia. None of these nations are remotely competitive with the local teams, although there is an on-again, off-again competition with Ireland in a hybrid of Aussie rules and Gaelic football. However, for teenagers and young adults from many developing nations getting a flight to Australia paid to come and play is pretty exciting. Soon, the AFL hopes, we'll have players from these countries playing at the highest level.
A joint Israeli/Palastinian team has been created to compete in the cup. Most of the players had never heard of Australian rules football before they were invited to play, let alone seen a game. They'd probably be thrashed by a weak team in an outback country league. One might think that you'd be better off doing the same thing with soccer or basketball teams. I believe such things are happening too, but as one of these articles makes clear, the very fact that the sport is new to the players can be a strength not a weakness, and of course the assistance from the League might be harder to obtain for an established sport.
When your team loses as badly as mine did this weekend its easy to hate football for a few days. But reading these pieces was as good as the best wins.
Ready. Here they are.
Australian Rules Football is an odd sport. Until about 30 years ago it was only really played in southern and north-western Australia, areas that include about half the national population. Americans sometimes describe it as a mix of basketball and soccer, although its more accurately a mix of soccer, rugby and a game played by the Indigenous population of Western Victoria. It's most similar modern sport is Gaelic football, which appears to be a derivative created by Irish gold diggers returning from the Victorian gold rush.
In the late 70s the people who ran the major leagues decided a little local game would not survive as more than a curiosity in the face of competition with global sports like rugby and what most of the world considers football. So they started an aggressive expansion campaign, joining up all the state-based leagues and making a push into the rugby playing north-east of Australia. Now they're moving on, trying to spark interest overseas.
Where this really gets interesting is that some of their expansion strategies have caused them to act in ways that are having some remarkable spin-offs. Football is something of a religion in many Aboriginal Indigenous communities, and the league realised that the skills of players from some of these areas form one of the game's greatest attractions. They've set up coaching programs in places that have been desperately under-resourced by the government. Children are only allowed to play if they attended school the previous week, and this has been the most successful program in Australian history in addressing truancy in remote communities.
More suprisingly, the league singled out South Africa as the best prospects for growth. They've approached schools in some of the poorest townships offering to supply sporting gear and administration money on the condition the schools teach Australian rules. For these schools battling parental unemployment over 50%, soaring rates of HIV and drastic underfunding this is a godsend. Some inspirational and hilarious stories have come out of this program.
One aspect of the international push is the creation of an international cup for all nations playing our rules other than Australia. None of these nations are remotely competitive with the local teams, although there is an on-again, off-again competition with Ireland in a hybrid of Aussie rules and Gaelic football. However, for teenagers and young adults from many developing nations getting a flight to Australia paid to come and play is pretty exciting. Soon, the AFL hopes, we'll have players from these countries playing at the highest level.
A joint Israeli/Palastinian team has been created to compete in the cup. Most of the players had never heard of Australian rules football before they were invited to play, let alone seen a game. They'd probably be thrashed by a weak team in an outback country league. One might think that you'd be better off doing the same thing with soccer or basketball teams. I believe such things are happening too, but as one of these articles makes clear, the very fact that the sport is new to the players can be a strength not a weakness, and of course the assistance from the League might be harder to obtain for an established sport.
When your team loses as badly as mine did this weekend its easy to hate football for a few days. But reading these pieces was as good as the best wins.
Ready. Here they are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)