This week, I’ve been th!nking about what we’re all actually doing here. For a very broad definition of “we”. Our presenters at the Brussels event stressed that at this point, humanity has the technology and the resources to end poverty. So why hasn’t it happened yet?
The answer, obviously, is politics. While poverty is a concept entirely of its own, development is really just a subset, a crossroads of politics and economics. Example: a lot of developing nations don’t produce enough food. Famine exists even in fertile regions. A fundamental reason that I keep hearing is that the developed nations skew agriculture, use subsidies to drive developing nations out of competition. Why are the subsidies in place? Because nations are very careful about maintaining viable local food production. Subsidies automatically mean that European and North American crops cannot compete with those grown in Asia, Africa and Latin America on cost and efficiency. So logically, in a purely capitalist market, developing nations ought to be agricultural powerhouses, feeding the rest of the world – much like colonies fed the metropolies in 19th century empires. This is prevented by each country’s political necessity to provide for itself, in case of war, or even conflict with neighbors. (If you want proof that this scheme works, look at the recent history of natural gas supplies to Western Europe.)
Otto von Bismarck famously called politics “the art of the possible”. Humankind, and Europe in particular, is really good at politics. And we really ought to be applying the same concept to development. We only have five very short years to reach the MDGs. So why do we care more about revelations than impartiality? Why do we care about blame more than change?
Here’s a link that came out of the comments thread to Lara’s Gaza post. It leads to an article by British TV reporter Jon Snow, about how the Israeli military stopped him and other Western journalists from entering the Gaza strip during the 2008-2009 attacks. (Incidentally, I suggest you read it, and then watch the Wikileaks helicopter video if you haven’t yet.) The really interesting thing about Jon Snow’s article is how The Independent’s website suggested a related article: this one, published ten days later. Apparently Israel’s leadership made a public statement that they would lift the blockade if Hamas released a kidnapped Israeli soldier. (It didn’t, and they haven’t.)
Now, just so the comment thread does not devolve into another flame war, let me go on the record as saying that I have no doubt whatsoever that Israel has caused enormous, entirely disproportionate amounts of death and devastation in Gaza, including the use of horrible weapons such as white phosphorous, and destroying vital civilian infrastructure.
That said, a competent practitioner of the art of the possible would have released the Israeli soldier – the enormous amounts of good will generated both internationally and within Israel would have almost certainly left the Israeli government no choice but to lift the blockade. Not only is one Israeli soldier obviously less important than the lives of hundreds or thousands of Palestinians, but that is the sort of political capital that is absolutely invaluable in conflict resolution.
And yet, as I write this, I already anticipate that I will be attacked furiously for daring to suggest that both sides ought to do everything in their power to resolve a conflict.
It is indisputable that the blockade of Gaza is causing great harm and must end. But pictures of misery have been coming out of Palestine for decades. They have always been extremely shocking and compelling. Israel was always portrayed, and largely seen, as the aggressor.
How’s that been working out, so far? Is Gaza free and thriving? Maybe it’s time for another approach? Maybe it’s time to look at how Palestinian leadership before Hamas managed to create all those good things in Gaza that Israel has destroyed since, and learn from that? Maybe it’s time to do what will actually bring the most benefit to the most Palestinians, the most quickly? Maybe NGO grants and righteous indignation just aren’t helping anyone?
When you look at a conflict, an issue, an obstacle to development, ask yourself: what's the most realistic way to help?
In conclusion, here’s a lesson from my own country’s history. This is how you end occupation.
The questions you raised in the last paragraph have no single answer. I don’t know what approaches would work. I also don’t know if NGO grants and righteous indignation are not at all effective. I don’t think that’s the case. I have no answers myself or enough knowledge on the issue for me to be able to give some answers but I hope there would be long-term solutions to this decades-long conflict.
So… who do you think will provide the answers?
If you don’t have answers - go and find some.
Andrei, I am glad that you posted The Baltic way video. But the thing is, and we have to face it, the Baltic way didn’t change anything and it wasnt the reason why occupation ended. We, Baltics, just show’d the world how strong we are united. Occupation ended beacuse every empire has time to end - Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, Ottoman Empire, Russian Empire, British Empire and the USSR..
And we want it or not, politics is the way how to change stereotypes, thinking and learning. If we had a really strong policy programme then we would not sit here and think - will next five years be good for MDG’s or not. It’s the question - how strong we want.
Thank you for the article.
Edgars - the Baltic Way wasn’t the reason the occupation ended, but it was a very big contributor to the reason it ended without protracted civil wars. In fact, in Estonia it ended without a single shot, although Latvia and Lithuania were less lucky. The Baltics’ struggle for independence is a great example of achieving your goals through the art of the possible - operating within the occupying force’s structure to improve the conditions of your own people first (the Baltics had a higher standard of living than any other USSR region - because local authorities did not enforce communist policies as strictly as they were expected to), then jump at the opportunity when the empire is weak to introduce policies such as self-governance, economic sovereignty, and eventually, independence.
The important lesson is that it worked. Because of this, we are not Moldova or Armenia.
(Oh gosh, I went all emotional with that Baltic Way video.. I have flashes of memory of that, I was four then.)
As if on queue, an article just appeared on The Economist’s website: http://www.economist.com/world/middle-east/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15913000
“Mr Awad is a former fighter from a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon, not a lily-livered pacifist. But he questions the utility of battling militarily against the Israelis when the results hurt Palestinians more than the enemy. He is one of the founders of a proclaimed “popular campaign for security in the buffer zone” that seeks to crack Israel’s siege wall by means of peaceful protest.
Week after week his followers march into the 300-metre-wide perimeter zone which Israel declared off-limits after last year’s assault on Gaza. From their nine-metre-high turrets on the surrounding walls, Israeli snipers chase off the protesters with gunfire. Though several of them have been wounded, week after week they march back and plant Palestinian flags as close as they can to the walls before Israeli soldiers open fire.
Could such civil resistance catch on? Unlike the Islamist movements that stage rallies from the relative safety of Gaza City, the unarmed protesters have won local plaudits for their courage in marching to the front-line to advocate non-violence. The campaigners dream of a mass march through Gaza’s crossings to break free of the suffocating siege and of replanting the farmland that has been turned into a wasteland. Most Gazan campaigners from the established political movements say that non-violence is pointless and has never worked. But the new movement’s numbers, though still small, seems to be growing, boosted by the farmers who have lost some of their best land.”