Members of the 4th Cavelry Squadron departing from Sean Connolly Barracks in Longford during a barracks closing ceremony before relocating to Custume Barracks in Athlone, Jan 29th. Photo:Alan Betson /THE IRISH TIMES
A caricature of French president Nicolas Sarkozy is carried during a protest march in Paris yesterday. The demonstrations were part of a nationwide one-day strike called by France’s eight main trade unions to try to persuade Mr Sarkozy and business leaders to do more to help people overcome the economic crisis.
Photograph: Reuters
A lot has been said and written about the trade union led protests in France. What really stands out for me are the very real cultural differences between the French and the Irish attitudes towards trade unionism. Maybe I’m just uninformed, but I get the feeling that in general, trade unions are tolerated in this country as an institution of the past that society is evolving beyond. In terms of the economy, I get the impression that most people see the trade unions as a hinderance to progress.
From a distance, it seems as though the French conception of trade unionism is significantly different. The French trade unions seem to be able to demand a seat at the governing table because of the support (albeit passive) they are perceived to have from most parts of society.
If that in fact is the case, why is that so? How come the profile of the trade unions here doesn’t seem to be rising, even at a time when their traditional base is under a darker cloud than it has been in a long time?
MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai addressing supporters in Harare today. Photograph: Reuters/Philimon Bulawayo
The MDC has decided to go into government with Robert Mugabe’s Zanu PF. The question is, will it work?
I’m never sure how much more about Zimbabwe non-Zimbabweans can stomach. And that in itself may contribute to the establishment of a national unity government.
Although the death toll from the cholera has reached 3000 and is still rising, the country seems to be fading from the international news scene. Every time there is a regional meeting, it gets a little attention, but on the whole, ‘Zimbabwe-fatigue’ seems to have set in. The ruling party have dug their heels in and truth be told, it doesn’t look like they are any closer to being dislodged than when this mess began.
The question, if you are the opposition, then becomes this: do you stick to principle at all costs and refuse to cooperate with an illegitimate power? Or, do you reluctantly get in bed with a treacherous group in the hope that you may be influence enough change to ease the plight of the people and begin a process of restoring normality to the country?
There are no easy answers. If the opposition refuse to cooperate, eventually, the Mugabe regime will collapse. But at what cost? There are enough failed states in Africa as it is, and following that course could create a society that perpetually fails to get on track. Not to mention the horrible human cost.
Having said that, acquiescing could prove to be just as disastrous. It may, for example, solidify the belief that with sufficient stubbornness and the use of deadly force, power can be retained indefinitely. Similarly, the opposition MDC may never have the negotiating power they have now, and passing up this opportunity to force changes could lead to the loss of even more life in the future.
Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC will decide between these two unpleasant options tomorrow.
After years spent trying to gain asylum in Ireland, it appears as though Pamela Izevbekhai and her daughters are a step closer to being deported.
From my understanding of the case, Mrs Izevbekhai lost a child after a genital mutilation procedure went wrong. Although the practice is banned in Nigeria, it persists in some parts. According to her, she then decided to flee the country to ensure that the same fate wouldn’t befall her remaining daughters. From what I gather, this story is a common one.
Why has the justice department decided not to grant her asylum? Only they can fully answer that question. But some of the reasons include the fact that officially, Nigeria is classified as country that is capable of ensuring its citizen’s rights. There is also the fact that the Izevbekhais stopped over in another country before reaching Ireland. And the extent to which her daughters will be at risk if they return is disputed. I think these are the main official reasons.
Less official ones probably include the political ramifications of taking a decision that questions Nigeria’s human rights standing. There is almost definitely also a desire to portray Ireland as a tough place to get into as a means of discouraging other potential asylum claims. In this regard, Ireland is no different to many other countries, Australia being an example that quickly springs to mind.
Whatever the reasons, the sad thing is that the handling of this case has probably had as much to do with the politics of immigration and asylum than the specifics and the best interests of the parties involved. In light of the economic difficulties that the country is experiencing, it is going to be interesting to note the public’s reaction to all of this.
Latin America has always fascinated me. The region has had a pretty traumatic history but on the whole, seems to be have managed to get back on its feet. Even more impressively is the fact that in many ways, South America has refused to blindly follow its northern neighbours and has often proposed alternative ways of doing things.
For example, in the 1960s and 70s, the region produced an economic theory of development that was radically different to that proposed by mainstream economics. A group of Argentinean economists got the world to start seeing the global economic system in terms of a core (‘the West’) and the periphery (everybody else) linked in a structure that perpetuated the social imbalances that are still in existence today. A lot of the tenants of Structuralism and subsequently, Dependency theory, were later disproved. However, both have contributed a significantly to the social sciences.
Today, apart from Cuba, countries like Venezuela and Bolivia make for interesting social experiments. It will be interesting to see what comes of Hugo Chavez’s attempts at building a ‘socialist’ society, especially now that oil prices have dropped and his popularity is waning, if only slightly.
Even more interesting is what is happening in Bolivia. Evo Morales, the country’s first Amerindian leader, has managed to get a new constitution approved in a referendum. The constitution seeks to increase the rights of Bolivia’s indigenous people. It even refers to the various groups as ‘nations’. I find that particularly interesting because Ethiopia’s constitution is similar in that regard and has the same sort of emphasis on collective rights.
I wonder how this turn of events will play out in a country that has seen a rise in tension between the indigenous majority and wealthy elite of mainly European or mixed descent. Bolivians obviously haven’t heard that we are now living in a post-race era!
Barack Obama is sworn in as the 44th president of the United States at the Capitol in Washington DC yesterday, alongside his wife Michelle. Photographer: Mark Wilson/Bloomberg
I remember arguing with a newspaper editor (no, it wasn’t Geraldine Kennedy or anyone else from The Irish Times) about aid to the developing world generally, and sub-Saharan Africa specifically. Without opening myself up to accusations of misrepresentation, his view was that it obviously isn’t working and there should be a moratorium on it while the structural causes of under-development are investigated and then remedied. That would almost qualify as a plausible argument were it not for the fact that the governance of the nation-state is based on self-interest. And contrary to the belief of some, a situation in which everyone pursues their own interests seldom leads to the best outcome for all.
For example, in an article titled ‘EU’s butter mountain is back’, The International Herald Tribune’s Stephen Castle discusses the fact that the EU is buying 30, 000 tons of unsold butter and more than three times that amount of skimmed milk from European farmers. It turns out that the farming community is struggling to sell its milk and butter in the current economic environment. For a number of reasons - governments’ fear of the ability of powerful farm lobbies to replace them; a genuine desire to protect European farmers and their way of life; and Lord knows what else - Brussels has decided to step in and help out its farmers by offering this subsidy. Here’s the problem, what then happens to those products? Well, initially, they are stored in warehouses, but the plan is to eventually get rid of those stores. Eventually, they are literally ‘dumped’ into developing countries, one way or another.
Because developing nations can’t afford to subsidize their own farmers to the same degree that the EU or US can, their farmers are unable to compete with the cheaper goods coming from abroad eventually lowering their earning ability and standard of living. In response to that, I imagine the pragmatic European farm lobbyist would reply that, as sad as that may be, without the subsidy, it is the European farmer whose income and standard of living would drop.
Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t an anti-farm lobby or anti-European farmer rant. All I’m trying to do is to show how complicated ‘development’ is and why it’s frustrating when people like the editor I argued with decide to make judgements that (in my opinion) don’t take the full picture into account. I really want to see those structural problems dealt with, and if they were, I would be the first one to demand that all ‘aid’ cease. But it’s not going to happen anytime soon. Especially if the likes of Robert Ehrlich have their way.
I’ve got to say, President Obama knows how to start with a bang. Promising to shut down Guantánamo Bay within a year is a bold move.
I’ve tried to be gracious to President Bush and his time in office. But it must be said, the so called ‘Bush Doctrine’, and by extension, acts of extraordinary rendition and keeping ‘enemy non-combatants’ locked up without recourse to habeas corpus did untold damage to the standing of the United States. I don’t know how anyone can justify a war waged for ‘freedom’ and other noble purposes that is conducted so dishonorably. Sending that kind of mixed message made that country seem incredibly hypocritical.
I don’t think that this one act has completely cleaned up American foreign policy, but it is one strong notice of intent. Not only does it signify a shift in foreign policy, it also implies a change in the Executive’s relationship with the law. I guess if you want a president who will abide by, and defend the letter and spirit of the law, it doesn’t hurt to pick a law professor for the job.
If Obama manages to keep all his promises, or if he takes steps as solid as the Guantánamo announcement with everything else that he said he would do, that 70-odd per cent approval rating he currently has may not crash as badly as I thought it would.
There has been an interesting range of opinion regarding this speech. Before I say what I thought it and the whole inauguration (the morning after, so to speak), I would love to hear what others thought.
So, what did you think of it all?
I don’t know who did it, but someone(people) nominated this blog for an award.
Thank you. I really appreciate it.
Today, history will be made. The United States will inaugurate it’s first black president. Yet, I’m not really that excited.A huge part of it is because the excitemant has come and, in large part, has gone for me. November 5th 2008 was momentous. Today’s events will merely formalise something we have all been coming to terms with since then. It’ a pity they wait as long as they do to install the next president.
Another reason why I’m not jumping up and down for joy is because I think Obama’s role is largely symbolic. Let me explain. I think the biggest ‘thing’ he gives his nation and the rest of the world is a sense of hope and possibility. Having lived in places where hope literally sustains people, I would be the last person to belittle the importance of that quality in America’s next president. Tied in to that hope, I think he inspires people to strive for more and better. Again, you can’t quantify the importance of that. But even I, an unashamed Obama fan, have begun to feel that the level of expectation on him in some quarters has gone way beyond the ridiculous.
He isn’t Superman, Batman, the Messiah, or some other kind of mystical being. Nor has he claimed to be any of those things. In fact, Obama has unsuccessfully tried to play down what he can accomplish. So tomorrow, the day after history is made, the world will be in pretty much the same condition as it was before. Were it like a person with a bad cold, I would be confident that team Obama would be able to whip up some chicken soup and make everything better in a relatively short time. As things stand, it will take all the brilliance of the man and his team to get the planet, whose ailment resembles cancer much more than a cold, on the road to recovery.
So, while I’m looking forward to the festivities today, like the Rev., Jesse Jackson Sr., I can’t help but look beyond today’s celebrations. That said, when I sit down in front of my TV to watch the inauguration, all that might change.
When I was young, the kids in our neighbourhood often played all sorts of games together. When it became obvious that the teams were unbalanced or the rules were not fair, we changed things around. I’m thinking of looking up the people from the neighbourhood I’ve lost touch with because it seems to me that there’s a bunch of rules that is in serious need of rethinking.
Two cases come to mind: Israel/Palestine and Mugabe/Tsvangirai.
Let’s start with Israel and Palestine. Deaglán has a really good post up on the madness of the whole thing. What really saddens me is the fact that on both sides, people don’t seem to realise that their so-called leaders are exploiting their anger and hatred of the other side for cynical, personal gain. The icing on the cake as far as I’m concerned is the manner in which the whole thing has been perfectly choreographed to end in time for the US presidential inauguration. Someone obviously did their calculations and concluded that the PR and political costs of sullying an historic occasion were too high to pay. The lives of hundreds of innocent bystanders, on the other hand, were obviously deemed by both sides to be much less significant.
And then there is Zimbabwe. Although I have a lot of sympathy for Morgan Tsvangirai and very little for Robert Mugabe, both have put the country and its people second. Both have prioritised, to very different degrees, ‘winning’. The result is that even if today’s talks prove to be a success and a ‘government of national unity’ is put in place, there isn’t going to be much for them to govern. What these two have done is similar, in principle, to what Israel and the Palestinians have done over the years - both sides have put winning, at times winning at all costs, before the greater good.
In both cases, the impotence of the ‘international community’ has been glaringly obvious. I know there are no easy answers or quick fixes, but I think it’s long past time the ‘rules’ governing how the international community operates were reassessed. I have no idea what that would look like in reality, but something has to give.
Passengers awaiting rescue from the wings of a US Airways Airbus after its pilot made an emergency landing in the Hudson river in New York yesterday. All passengers and crew were safe. Photograph: Brendan McDermid/Reuters
The decision to nationalize Anglo Irish Bank is a really interesting one, especially considering the fact that Fine Gael wanted the bank to be shut down.
For one thing, it represents a real ideological difference between the parties, even though I’m sure both sides will swear their positions have nothing to do with ideology. For some reason, ideology has turned into a dirty word. Be that as it may, if you are believer in the free market and neoclassical economics, the type that says that the only good regulation is no regulation, then this move is a disaster. The thinking is that ‘the market’ always works itself out. It ‘knows best’ or is ‘guided by an invisible hand’ in the same sort of way that in the world of natural science, molecules ‘know’ to move from a region of high concentration to one of low concentration. If you subscribe to this school of thought, the market has decided that Anglo Irish isn’t viable and nationalising it is, in effect, carrying dead weight on the backs of tax payers. This kind of thinking has been, to this point, the mainstream one with respect to economics and public policy.
An alternative is Keynesianism. This basically says that government intervention is a good thing, not a bad one. It says that regulation and intervention are essential to keep things in check. So that when a property bubble begins to appear, for example, you raise property taxes and maybe interest rates as a disincentive, nipping the bubble in the bud. And when a bank can’t carry on its operations on its own, there is room to intervene, which may mean nationalising it.
Personally, the latter makes a lot more sense to me than the former. Apart from the fact that the credit crisis that sparked this global recession was caused by a ridiculous belief in ‘the markets’, doesn’t it just make sense that things left untended are likely to go wrong? A counter argument to that is intervention and interference can be problematic when people get things wrong and intervene the wrong way. Another one is that a regulated system that can be meddled with is open to abuse. Both are perfectly valid arguments. But, parents don’t decide to not feed their children lest they give them the wrong things and set them on a path to obesity. Ridiculous example? In my opinion, the justification for leaving it to the markets is just as ridiculous.
The real significance of this decision for me is that this is the first real instance where I have seen an ideological difference between the two main political parties in the few years that I have lived in Ireland. Isn’t that something? On top of that, it looks like Fianna Fáil, like the US Democrats, are drifting towards Keynesian economics.
3 Rockets were fired into Israel from Lebanon this morning. That got me thinking about an interesting conversation I had with a lady who lives in my neighbourhood over the weekend. As far as she was concerned, Israel is more than justified in attacking Hamas militants, and the civilian casualties are an unfortunate reality of war. This lady, who would describe herself as a realist, took it a step further. She believed that unless Hamas is crushed, innocent Israeli civilians would have to endure rocket attacks and live in constant fear. The thing to do, she concluded, was to come as close as possible to wiping out Hamas regardless of the collateral damage.
Perhaps the greatest difficulty when it comes to issues involving the Middle-East is that people see conflict there from radically different perspectives. As a result of that, they make very different moral judgements. It’s not surprising then that a friend told me about being in a place where there were simultaneous demonstrations - one crowd in support of the Palestinians and the other, about the same size, in support of Israel. Unless cool heads intervene and prevail, the cycle of violence is bound to continue. That’s the conclusion former Jimmy Carter advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, came to, saying that it is quite obvious that Israel and Palestine will never be able to solve their disputes without outside mediation.
Now that elements from Lebanon have decided to get involved in this mess, you can bet that the different sides will hold onto their positions stronger than before. There will be those who will see Israel as a nation under seige trying to defend itself, while others will see the attacks as an inevitable consequence of Israel’s aggression. Unless the focus is maintained on the civilian suffering, there won’t be a viable solution any time soon.
Everyone needs to put the outrage and anger aside, and see the situation as it is. Then, hopefully, food, water, medical help and comfort can be given to those who desperately need it.
Yesterday, President G.W. Bush gave his last press conference. He’s expected to give a final televised address and then next week, he is out of a job. Bertie Ahern was criticized for indulging in a lap of honor before stepping down. That was nothing compared to what US president is doing. Bush has been on a mission to salvage his legacy for a while now. The press conference was undoubtably his best performance yet.
There is a saying in my language that roughly translates to ‘once someone dies, their faults are forgotten’. I’m sure that over time, people will let go of some of their animosity towards Bush. But judging from the video, that won’t happen any time soon. For now, a saying that is more appropriate for the president comes from Mark Anthony’s speech after Caesar’s death in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar: The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones.
The Daily Express led today with an interesting story titled SCANDAL AS NEW BRITISH JOBS GO TO MIGRANTS.
The gist of the story is that a Former Labour MP is unhappy with the fact that Gordon Brown’s government has introduce a work permit scheme that could allow 130 000 non-EU job seekers to enter the British job market. This comes at the same time as Mr Brown’s plan to create 100 000 new jobs. Frank Field, the former minister in question, has pointed out that there could be 30 000 more immigrants in British jobs than new jobs created at a time of rising unemployment.
I understand Frank Field’s position. When things get tough, the natural thing to do is to look after your own interests firsts. But at the same time, you can’t have it both ways. London has arguably become the financial capital of the world prceisely because the British government has allowed highly skilled and/or paid people from all over the world the right to live and work there. It’s not entirely accurate to portray the people who end up with those work permits as ‘stealing British jobs’. For example, Britain has gone to great lengths to recruit nurses from all over the world to fill in a skill gap in that country. Another example is a friend who was headhunted from a top South African law firm to work in a British one. When he got there, he found that he was one of many non-Europeans at the firm.
Be that as it may, this recession is going to be a time where lots of things are reassessed, and immigration will be right up near the top of the list. For a couple of reasons, I don’t think there will be any drastic changes though. For starters, migration is closely tied in to the free market philosophy and is an important aspect of global commerce. With respect to Europe specifically, the vast majority of migrants are citizens of other EU member states. The presence of immigrants will eventually become the norm rather than an exception. And if the Economist is to be believed, even taking new accession states into consideration, Europe’s population is aging and in the coming decades, it will need to import people.
But… antipathy towards migrants could rise. I have a feeling that there will be more front page headlines to do with migrants this year.
I’ve been planning to do this for the last couple of weeks but never got around to it. Of the non-fiction books that I read in 2008, these were the ones that had the greatest influence on me. Here they are:
At the top of the list is Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s Half of a Yellow Sun. I’m not a huge fan of fiction, but this historic novel set during the Nigerian-Biafran War isn’t a typical work of fiction. If I could have read just one book on this list, it would have been this one.
Mark Gevisser’s biography on South Africa’s former president, Thabo Mbeki, is another incredible book. Thabo Mbeki: The Dream Deferred is a bit long, and Gevisser gets a bit carried away with moments of psychoanalysis, but those are my only complaints. If you want to understand why Mbeki made some of his more controversial decisions and choices, this book is a great starting point.
Andrew Brown’s Fishing in Utopia: Sweden and the Future That Disappeared was the subject of an attempted book-club on this blog. To find out more about it, click on ‘bookclub’ on the list of categories (Andrew Brown himself comments on some of the posts). All I’ll say is that this is the most beautifully written autobiography I have read to date. It’s also really thought provoking
I mentioned Dambudzo Marechera’s The House of Hunger a few days ago. Marechera struggled with a mind that he probably couldn’t fully keep in check. From what I can tell, he seems to have suffered from bouts of mental illness. But he was also undoubtably a literary genius. I think both of these come across in his this collection of short stories, his first novel. It is vulgar and brutal in places, but it’s still a work of genius.
Colin Grant’s Negro with a Hat: Marcus Garvey is a phenomenal biography. I came across it by accident. I was in a bookshop and the title jumped out at me. I’m glad I bought it. Interestingly, the author later made comparisons between Barack Obama’s standing and popularity within the African American community with the effect that Garvey had with Black people in America about a hundred years ago.
Maybe the most influential book I read last year was Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. Ironically, this book was first published in 1985. A friend lent it to me months ago and I still haven’t returned it. If I could only recommend one book on this list, it might be this one.
That’s my list. I would love to know about other people’s lists. As for the book in the picture, I’ve just started reading it. Disclosure: I know the author, Rod Stoneman, personally. That said, if you have any sort of interest in the relationship between media and politics, and how public opinion is shaped, Rod is great person to talk to and Chavez - The Revolution Will Not be Televised: A Case Study of Politics and the Media is well worth reading.
U.S. President George W. Bush (C) meets with former President George H.W. Bush (L), President-elect Barack Obama (2nd L), former President Bill Clinton (2nd R) and former President Jimmy Carter (R) in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington January 7. Photo: Kevin Lamarque/REUTERS
A friend of mine is heading off to a vigil somewhere in Dublin for the people in Gaza. It’s a pity I couldn’t be there because I’m really curious about whether people actually care about the loss of life in this conflict. And by people, I especially mean those of the non-Jewish and non-Muslim variety.
Apart from the usual suspects - tree hugging lefties and Muslims in this case - who really cares about the civilian loss of life in Gaza? Who care about the women and children that have been killed? What about men who have nothing to do with Hamas? If the UN decides that Gaza is too unsafe for its people, what about the children who live there and have nowhere else to go?
The politics of this conflict aside, why hasn’t there been a more vocal response internationally? Yes, everyone has said the right things and there has been a UN security council resolution (which will probably be ignored), but… I’m not convinced the response is as vocal as it would be had Hamas killed the same number of Israeli women and children. I don’t get the sense that Palestinian lives matter in the great scheme of things as much as they should. The major talking points from a media perspective have been about the historical antecedents to this war, the political stakes, and so forth. What the implications of having no water, very little food, and a very real fear of death mean for the children of Gaza is glossed over.
Were I an Arab, I’d be furious. Regardless of whether or not Israel was justified in setting off on this course of action, the longer they stick with it, the longer they will be fighting beyond this particular conflict.
I’ve had a horrible cold/flu for the last few days. It hasn’t been all bad though. It has given me a chance to catch up with some casual reading. The book I chose to delve into between the endless sneezing, blowing my nose and trying to take in lots of fluids, was The House of Hunger.
The House of Hunger was published in 1978. It was written by the late Zimbabwean writer, Dambudzo Marechera. Marechera is one of the most famous artists Zimbabwe has produced. Born into what was then Rhodesia, he grew up in urban slum conditions at a time when black youths had few prospects. What made things worse was the fact that he seems to have struggled with mental illness on and off and had a home life that was as dysfunctional as they come. His environment and his incredibly special intelligence come through in this semi-autobiographical work which is difficult to follow in part, but remains a thing of beauty.
Describing his youth, Marechera wrote:
The freedom we craved for … this was so alive in our breath and in our fingers that one became intoxicated by it even before one had actually found it. It was like the way a man licks his lips in his dream of a feast; the way a woman dances in her dream of a carnival; the way the old man ran like a gazelle yearning for the funeral games of his youth. Yet the feast, the carnival and the games were not there at all … Life stretched out like a series of hunger-scoured hovels stretching endlessly towards the horizon. One’s mind became the grimy rooms, the dusty cobwebs in which the minute skeletons of one’s childhood were forever in the spidery grip that stretched out to include not only the very stones upon which one walked but also the stars which glittered vaguely upon the stench of our lives.
For all the respect I have for the deceased writer, Marechera has one major fault. His grace, and the beauty of his work can normalise his environment and make things look much better than they really were. It is not deliberate. I think he tried hard to paint a brutally honest picture. He just happened to paint it so well that it’s easy to be distracted by its form and lose sight of work’s subject.
Reading a work like The House of Hunger reminds me of the relative privilege I enjoy. It also got me thinking about my personal, and our collective attitude towards those whose lives resemble Marechera’s.
Elaine Byrne has a brilliant opinion piece in today’s Irish Times under the title Paying a heavy price for the sins of those in authority. The kind of sentiment she express makes me think that the economic hardships that have descended on this country will do more good than harm.
At the heart of her article is the idea that at the root of some of the institutional failure and social problems seen here is a lack of public interest and participation. It’s a brave claim to make, but I think she’s spot on.
The question then, for me, is why do people not participate more in public debate and the political process? Why is an election turn out of 60% of eligible voters a good thing? Do people really care about how the country is run or is human nature such that most of us would rather focus on our personal lives but retain the right to criticise authority when things go wrong?
This is the second time that I’ve brought up Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World this week, but maybe we should all be made to read the book again. Towards the end, there is a discussion about ‘truth’ and, I suppose, ‘participation’. The discussion concludes with an acknowledgement that most people would rather ‘get on with it’ than have to deal with the realities of life and ‘truth’. The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced the same is true today.
We pay lip service to global warming but very few are willing to drastically change their lifestyle. Global equality is another one, but again, the thought of more poor people from the global South on our shores and potentially rocking the boat here is a nightmare shared by many. And as Elain Byrne pointed out, though efficient government is one of the things that most people say they want, few even attempt to keep government accountable.
If we’re paying for anything, I think it’s for our own disinterest.
2008 saw a 3% decrease in asylum applications compared to 2007. The number of people who asked for asylum over the year? 3,866.
That number has dropped significantly over the last few years because there has been a lot of work done by the authorities to keep asylum seekers out. The rationale is that if Ireland is seen as a ‘soft touch’ - an easy country to get into - the country would soon be overwhelmed by migrants from the developing world claiming asylum. But as President Sarkozy has said in the past, Europe is not the El Dorado that some think it is and cannot accommodate all who view it as such.
Be that as it may, I think the entire asylum process is unjust. First of all, the bulk of forced migration occurs in the developing world. South Africa, for example, as well as Botswana, Namibia, Mozambique and Zambia have each had to accommodate a lot more than 3,866 Zimbabwean refugees over the past 12 months. On a global scale, the number of asylum seekers and refugees that Europe sees from the developing world is much smaller than the number who migrate to countries in the same region.
Secondly, under various UN statutes, countries have an obligation to protect those fleeing persecution. Surely then, the aim should be to do the best job of that as possible. Instead, in many places, it seems the aim is to see as few applicants as possible. Maybe the thinking is that so much money is given in aid that the places like Europe have earned the right to not have others’ problems spill onto our doorsteps?
My final problem with this area is the claim that the majority of asylum seekers are just economic migrants who do not qualify for work permits. But surely the fear of starvation is just as powerful as the fear of political persecution? If the International Bill of Rights outlines civil and political rights as well as social and economic rights, why can’t people seek asylum from eceonomic hardship? How can it possibly be reasonable to accept that people can flee from political threats, but not from the threat of starvation?
I don’t think the 3,866 figure is anything to celebrate. The figure that I think we should be focusing on is that of those who are stuck in ‘temporary’ refugee camps with nowhere to go, and those living in places that just cannot sustain them. If there is a figure that we should be working to reduce, shouldn’t it be the latter?
Employees of Hyundai Motor take part in a ceremony to mark the new year at the company headquarters in Seoul January 2nd. Photo:Jo Yong-Hak /REUTERS
