There is no other tragedy more cruel than somebody dying of hunger. As the civilised world, with all its efforts, is helplessly watching tens of thousands of people in Africa die of famine and food crisis year after year,this year the ghost of 1994 Somalia and Ethiopian famine has come to haunt Niger and Mali and few other african countries. The international aid agencies are trying hard to help as they could, even though the famine has already taken its toll on children and the elderly and animals as well.

The problem of African poverty is a complex issue of nature's fury, internal conflicts,corruption and to some extent global negligence. Droughts and crop failures create food crisis. But that is not the only problem. there are instances of overflowing warehouses and empty stomachs. Even the food distributed by the international aid agencies could not be properly distributed in the presence of rebel groups and high corruption among the local authoriites.

The 'Make poverty history' campaign and the G8 summit have promised and done enough to adddress this problem. But no amount of external aid and support will work, until the african countries try to solve thier political disputes and corruption to save their people. On thier part, the global community, apart from the food aids, should come out with a long-term strategy providing alternate agricultural technologies, trade favours, political mediation and capacity building.

Comments

It's a shame on both countries as a substantial portion of their population is below the povert line. Spending on defence takes a big chunk of the GDP and there is no sign of it getting reduced. Instaed it is likely to increase in future, diverting the scarce resources meant for construction to destruction. Whenever there is some euphoria over a possible peace, it invariably ends in mutual mistrust with Pakistan playing the spoilsport on many occasions. Either side is not willing to give up an inch on their stated position and in that process are paying too heavily for nothing.

Unlike India, Pakistan's nuclear weapons are also a global threat with a very unstable political scenario. There is always a threat that these weapons and technology could fall into the hands of militant groups in that region which could be catastrophic, to say the least. So the world community also has a role to stop this mad race to destruction.

Comments

The issue of terrorism is often viewed through the prism of political, religious and ideological connotations. However, a closer look at the cause and effect of terrorism would reveal the inherent economic issues related with it. The force of hunger alone has the potential to transform into a destructive force of anger directed against an illusionary enemy, with innocent people and institutions being the victims. As Prof Samuel Huntington puts it, terrorism is not a mere war between religions, regions or even civilizations but the battle between the haves and the have-nots. Most often, the places that generate and breed terrorism and other related criminal activities such as drug & narcotics trafficking, money laundering, extortion, etc. are the economically and politically instable regions where poverty, hunger and isolation have resulted in terrorism and violence.

In the era of transnational economies, the incidents of terror not only unleash immediate fear and panic but a spiraling wave of economic recession across the globe causing irrecoverable loss and damage. This again creates a vicious cycle of poverty, economic backwardness and political instability in poorer regions leaving them a fertile ground for terrorism and other organized criminal activities. The incidents like 9/11 in the US and the most recent 7/7 in UK have proved that the tentacles of terrorism have reached the rich nations as well.

This global phenomenon and its huge economic fall-outs have added a new dimension to the analysis of economic development and necessitate wide range of discussions and deliberations. The major areas of contemplation would be; the huge spending on security and anti-terrorism activities, impact on the international trade and trading costs, influence on business and market environment and the changing insurance sector.

Comments

The new anti-terrorism measures announced by Tony Blair are sure to stir a hornet's nest with Human rights activists and organisations in the UK. Blair clearly finds himself in an unenviable position. One hand, he has to protect his people and make sure that another 7/7 does n't happen again. On the other hand he has to preserve individaul freedom and values of a vibrant, pluralistic and a democratic society. He had to do something and he did.
It's a typial case of "You are damned if you do something and you're still damned if you don't".

When we are fighting with an unknown enemy who is using unconventional methods like suicide bombing, some prophylactic measures should be adopted. Having said that, mere deporting of radical islamic clerics and curbing the freedom of few individuals will not do. I think, people who are fighting the terrorism should realise that cosmetic solutions will only be counter productive in the long run. The root cause of terrorism lies in the economic backwardness. If we look at the British muslim society in parts of London are isolated and economically deprived. In a sense they are a neglected society which makes them a easy target for radical islamic clerics.

We no longer can afford to think that terrorism is just a political, religious and ideological conflict. It has one more important component in Economic Dimensions. The regions that generate and harbour terrorist activities have long been economically backward regions where poverty and hunger have fed violence and extremism. These regions continue to lie under the viscious cycle of poverty, political instability, and terrorism.Unless this cycle is broken, we're definitely barking at the wrong tree.Be it Palestine or Kashmir or Afghanistan or the latest one in the list Iraq, the terrorist groups depend on the educated and unemployed youth from poor and deprived families. These young men are bought,indoctrinated and trained by some radical and powerful indivduals like Osama Bin Laden to achieve thier own ideological aims.

Therefore all the nations both individually and collectively should address the issue of terrorism as an economic problem,besides the corrective measures in the form of military action and spreading the ideology of good will and hope. A society with an equitable distribution of wealth and power is the only way to eradicate terrorism. Until we do that, terrorism will remain a Damocle's Sword over our neck and will be a nagging threat in the 21st century to the whole human society

Comments

The recent G8 summit at Gleneagles has sounded a deathknell for Kyoto protocol on climate change. Tony Blair's confession that Without the presence of US it would be very difficult to achieve the Kyoto targets, tells the sad story. It's amazing that how quickly things could change from euphoria to scepticism. Only on Feb 16 2005 the entire world, of course except the US and Australia, was celebrating the ratification of Kyoto protocol. But before the celebrations died down, Kyoto is ready to be killed and buried.

It shows how the whole world is precariously placed at the whip of a single nation. This is not the first time and will not be the last either. I think, the global institutions like UN, WTO and Kyoto protocol are becoming increasingly irrelevant and unsustainable in this unipolar world. We would be commiting a moral blunder to our younger generations if we do not care for this planet and its clean environment. Therefore, Kyoto should be implemented at any cost.

We need to analyse the issue in totality. To begin with, the developed countries with their early and rapid adoption of industrial revolution continue to pound the earth with every concievable emissions that caused global warming and the consequent climate change. While the developing countries, most of them were once colonised by the rich nations, were late to pick up the industrial revolution and are still many years behind the developed countries in terms of per capita economic growth and development.

Though these economies are rapidly growing and are waving on the IT revolution, to ask them to cut down their emissions would amount to stall their economic progression. Besides, the carbon emissions from these countries come mainly from agriculture and livestock on which around 70 % of the population depend upon for their livelihood. Asking them to cut down emissions would create huge food crisis.

It's a known fact that poor and the devloping countires in Africa and Asia are the ones that would take the brunt of climate change in the form of more droughts, floods and infectious diseases, for no fault of their own. Developed countries have more responsiblity and capability to cut down emissions. This fact is recognised by most of these countries, otherwise Kyoto would not have become a reality. US and Australia have worried about their economic growth and also are raising questions about the human involvement in climate change. But there are plenty of scientific reports referring to the incresed CO2 concentration have confirmed the human induced climate change.

The major problem with this climate change and clean environment issues can be attributed to 'public good' nature of them. Global climate and clean environment are, like public goods, mutually exclusive and have free rider properties. Everyone gets affected if one does not comply and nobody gets penalised or incentives for compliance. So everyone wants to be a free rider.

Comments