The fact that two Members of Scottish Parliament (MSP's) and a Member of the UK Parliament (MP) have raised expressions of objection to a proposed biomass plant to be built on the coast of a small Scottish Island is an encouraging decision, and one that weighs, on this occasion, heavily in democracy's favour. What it demonstrates above all is that, when decisions are to be made at the local, small-scale level, the interest of politicians in issues such as these adds weight to oppositions already expressed by the public in the form of (global) civil society movements. Although small scale in nature, it is the publicity of movements such as these that allows local civil society movements to grow and, possibly, to become movements of global civil society - witness the growth of the climate change movement 350.org, for example.
The point being made here is that if issues are raised in objection to a planned development, and details of these are fully made public, it is not long before more objections can be raised and planning applications or decisions that go against the public interest can be refused or altered to fit the demands of the public whom the elected government serves in the first place. This is a positive sign for local democracies and small-scale political movements to become more active in their local communities, in order to try and achieve positive change in their societies and communities on a daily basis. The fact that an opposition movement based on a planned biomass plant on a tiny Scottish island is garnering interest far beyond the shores of the Isle of Arran is testimony to both the power of the internet and the freedom of expression which local democracy attests to.
The proposed biomass plant off the coast of Arran in Western Scotland has already had over 200 objections raised on the North Ayrshire Council website, yet more are needed to make these objections gain credible weight and to make sure they are aired in both local and (perhaps) national government offices. or in parliament. Movements such these are always likely to start small-scale, but it is when members of the public and local communities start to take notice, perhaps due to similar expressions of objection against previously planned developments in their own local and societal communities, that local democracy really comes into it's own and can prove to be a powerful force far beyond the inefficiencies of larger, more bureaucratic and centralised governments. End of rant.
Sunday, 21 July 2013
Saturday, 13 July 2013
Britain food aid decision welcome, but only half the answer
The decision by Britain to provide £35 million in food aid to Zimbabwe and Malawi is a welcome decision, and one that demonstrates that Britain still recognises the need for international development aid to be sustained, however small this amount may seem compared to previous major trade deals with other countries in the international system. Although claims are often made that food aid does not benefit those who most require it, it is still essential for Britain's international standing that it is seen to help those in need in countries less fortunate than ourselves.
Perhaps the real crux of the matter is that, in an ever more unpredictable world where the price of basic food staples is constantly rising, the British Government is realising that in the future we are likely to be ever more dependent on both each other and on other countries for support as the problems of global climate change and rising waters impact on the price of domestic goods to such a degree that we in Britain need to drastically reconsider our eating habits, as well as our financial spending habits. It is entirely plausible that there may come a time when Britain does not have enough to feed it's ever growing population, and will need to look elsewhere in order to sustain itself. Although this time is hopefully a long time away, Britain will not continue to prosper by viewing itself through a single lens, dependent only on itself for it's long term survival.
This makes the decision to make funds available for food aid in these countries all the more welcome, and offers positive signs that Britain has not entirely forgotten about it's international responsibilities in a time of continuous austerity. However, food aid will only help so much, and until such a time as Britain realises that providing food aid is not the only, or even the main answer, the problem will never be solved. What these people want is not donations from a third country that enables them to live their lives as we do, but to be able to make their own fortune and determine their own destiny without having to rely on other parties. As before, it is important to acknowledge that we are all mutually responsible and equally interdependent in a complex international system, but the extent of that help does not necessarily mean we have a right to take away the dignity of other peoples in other countries. Until this is realised, food aid will continue to only solve half the problem (and perhaps even less than that).
Perhaps the real crux of the matter is that, in an ever more unpredictable world where the price of basic food staples is constantly rising, the British Government is realising that in the future we are likely to be ever more dependent on both each other and on other countries for support as the problems of global climate change and rising waters impact on the price of domestic goods to such a degree that we in Britain need to drastically reconsider our eating habits, as well as our financial spending habits. It is entirely plausible that there may come a time when Britain does not have enough to feed it's ever growing population, and will need to look elsewhere in order to sustain itself. Although this time is hopefully a long time away, Britain will not continue to prosper by viewing itself through a single lens, dependent only on itself for it's long term survival.
This makes the decision to make funds available for food aid in these countries all the more welcome, and offers positive signs that Britain has not entirely forgotten about it's international responsibilities in a time of continuous austerity. However, food aid will only help so much, and until such a time as Britain realises that providing food aid is not the only, or even the main answer, the problem will never be solved. What these people want is not donations from a third country that enables them to live their lives as we do, but to be able to make their own fortune and determine their own destiny without having to rely on other parties. As before, it is important to acknowledge that we are all mutually responsible and equally interdependent in a complex international system, but the extent of that help does not necessarily mean we have a right to take away the dignity of other peoples in other countries. Until this is realised, food aid will continue to only solve half the problem (and perhaps even less than that).
Tuesday, 2 July 2013
Review: Kofi Annan - Interventions: A Life in War and Peace
Reading the biography of Kofi Annan is like reading no other - completely different to the myriad of celebrity biographies saturating the market, this deals with hard-hitting facts and real issues that any self-aware world citizen will be able to sink his teeth into. Starting out by giving a bit of background on his time growing up in Africa before moving onto higher education in Europe, America and Africa, Kofi wastes no time in getting to the issues that occupied his time as the UN's seventh Secretary General, including conflict in the Middle East, genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia, 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, right up to the issues of the Millennium Development Goals, sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect.
Perhaps the most fundamental point raised in the book is the extent to which the UN is held to account by both states and individuals around the world, yet it is the willingness of states to commit fundamental resources (or not) that continues to severely hamper the UN in it's wide remit. Although the UN has achieved much, and received much criticism, it is this limitation that most critics of the UN fail to realise - the UN can only function effectively if the states which constitute it's core membership are prepared to commit the necessary personnel and resources to the issues with which the UN deals. The UN itself is a powerful voice, but can only achieve so much, having no recourse to such funds and people as it needs to deal with the issues which many states continually push to one side in their pursuit of economic growth and foreign policy goals often seen from only one angle.
Admittedly, by Annan's own admission, the UN is not perfect - some areas are clearly in need of reform, with the issue of the permanent membership of the Security Council in particular need of revision, dominated as it is by member states that are not necessarily the key players in the international system they once were, whilst many other relevant voices are left marginalised with barely a note of influence on the workings of the UN. Perhaps the most important thing to take from this book, however, is that the UN is needed more than ever - there is, quite simply, no other world institution so committed to the ideals of Human Rights and peacekeeping as the UN, and at it's heart is a fundamental desire to do good, many of which come from Kofi Annan's own persona, yet credit is also due to the many who work at the UN who share this vision to work towards a vision for the greater good.
Towards the end of the book, it is clear that Kofi still has positive relations with many of the worlds leaders, past and present, and continues to have a keen eye and finger in what is happening around the world - recognised more than anything, perhaps, by the request of the current Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon for Kofi to be a special envoy in dealing with the Syrian crisis. This book is essential reading for anyone with an interest in international affairs, but particularly for those who wish to look at the issues from a different angle to the one national government's tend to approach things from. This book will undoubtedly have it's critics, and will most likely not change the opinions of those not in favour of the UN. It remains, however, an essential book and one that is much needed to inspire a future generation to work towards the positive vision which the UN inspires.
Next review: Francis Fukuyama - The Origins of Political Order (Approx. August 2013)
Perhaps the most fundamental point raised in the book is the extent to which the UN is held to account by both states and individuals around the world, yet it is the willingness of states to commit fundamental resources (or not) that continues to severely hamper the UN in it's wide remit. Although the UN has achieved much, and received much criticism, it is this limitation that most critics of the UN fail to realise - the UN can only function effectively if the states which constitute it's core membership are prepared to commit the necessary personnel and resources to the issues with which the UN deals. The UN itself is a powerful voice, but can only achieve so much, having no recourse to such funds and people as it needs to deal with the issues which many states continually push to one side in their pursuit of economic growth and foreign policy goals often seen from only one angle.
Admittedly, by Annan's own admission, the UN is not perfect - some areas are clearly in need of reform, with the issue of the permanent membership of the Security Council in particular need of revision, dominated as it is by member states that are not necessarily the key players in the international system they once were, whilst many other relevant voices are left marginalised with barely a note of influence on the workings of the UN. Perhaps the most important thing to take from this book, however, is that the UN is needed more than ever - there is, quite simply, no other world institution so committed to the ideals of Human Rights and peacekeeping as the UN, and at it's heart is a fundamental desire to do good, many of which come from Kofi Annan's own persona, yet credit is also due to the many who work at the UN who share this vision to work towards a vision for the greater good.
Towards the end of the book, it is clear that Kofi still has positive relations with many of the worlds leaders, past and present, and continues to have a keen eye and finger in what is happening around the world - recognised more than anything, perhaps, by the request of the current Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon for Kofi to be a special envoy in dealing with the Syrian crisis. This book is essential reading for anyone with an interest in international affairs, but particularly for those who wish to look at the issues from a different angle to the one national government's tend to approach things from. This book will undoubtedly have it's critics, and will most likely not change the opinions of those not in favour of the UN. It remains, however, an essential book and one that is much needed to inspire a future generation to work towards the positive vision which the UN inspires.
Next review: Francis Fukuyama - The Origins of Political Order (Approx. August 2013)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)