Khary is a Senior Editor for the Interview/Endpaper section of the Harvard International Review.
Racism & The Wrong Number Response
Until recently, Indian call centers have been hailed as a good thing by many on the sub-continent. However recent trends of verbal abuse of call center workers by American custumers have cast doubt on the viability of this form of outsourcing.
Many Indian call center workers have experienced increased hostility from their American friends on the other side of the telephone line. There have been reports of racist statements, sexual harassment and otherwise verbal abuse. Many of the reports reveal discontent among Americans about the outsourcing of jobs to India – a valid concern. What is disconcerting, however, is how this displeasure has manifest itself.
Abusive callers have resorted to racism, accusing Indian workers of being inefficient and unworthy to fill American jobs. While the validity of claims of inefficiency may or may not be true, racist comments are completely unjustified. In addition to anger at losing jobs to foreign workers, there seems to be some discontent that these workers are Indian. If the person on the other end of the line had a British accent, I wonder if customer response would be the same.
Wrong, Strong and Unremorseful
Hungarian Prime-minister, Ferenc Gyurcsany’s admission to years of misleading the public has spurred a set of mixed reactions among observers. Many hail the PM’s admission as an admirable display of honesty as his speech urged members of his party to stop lying to the public and face the facts about Hungary’s financial situation. Others, mainly throngs of angry Hungarian nationals, have reacted by staging sometimes violent protests outside the Hungarian parliament, calling for Mr. Gyurcsany’s resignation.
Gyurcsany’s response to these calls has been rather surprising. The prime minister has shown no remorse for his remarks. Rather, he justifies them by stating, “I was referring to the whole of the Hungarian Elite, not just ourselves.” While it may be true that taken in context of the speech to party officials in which the remarks were made, Mr. Gyurcsany’s admission to lying serves more as a rallying call for honesty, he must realize that no citizen abiding to the principles of democracy could settle with less than his resignation.
There is more to the issue than the fact Mr. Gyurcsany “lied”. As many media persons have noted since the rise of this issue, politicians mislead the public all the time. What is of issue in this case is the significance of Gyurcsany’s lies and what it means for the mandate of his prime-ministership. Gyurcsany has admitted to misleading the public in order to win the April election. Though voters may have suspected that he was lying all a long, it is his admission that makes his prime-ministerial position without mandate. Hungarian citizens cannot be expected to keep in power a leader who has admitted to stealing their vote with lies. Perhaps the former communist doesn’t realize that.
The Commonwealth: Possible Promotor of the Common Good
With the indefinite suspension of WTO Free Trade Negotiations on July 24, it is unclear when if at all talks will be restarted. What is clear is that if negotiations are to be re-opened, they will need to be done so with an added mechanism to avoid the fate that has befallen the Doha round.
A major contributing factor to the failure of this latest round has been the self-interested strategy with which some of the heavy weight nations have pursued a comprehensive trade deal. Though the Doha round has been touted as a “development round” there seems to have been a lack of commitment to development as seen in the agricultural subsidy debate. Rather, the round has turned out to be a battle of world influence with the powerful determining what is to their advantage and attempting to convince the weak that it is to theirs as well.
While some degree of self-interest it to be expected in any negotiations, it should not be a hindering factor in a free trade agreement that most agree represents a win-win situation for all in the long run. A revived round of negotiations needs to guard against the political maneuvering and self-interested manipulation that has characterized previous rounds. Moreover, it needs to ensure negotiators maintain the somewhat moral commitment to development.
Best to fulfill this role is an international organization whose power structure does not afford disproportionate representation or influence to any one nation(s). It will also require an organization whose membership is representative of both the developed and developing nations of the WTO and holds credibility as an unbiased promoter of development. While this criteria eliminates several of the Washington-based international organizations, the Commonwealth of Nations emerges as a suitable candidate to guide the progress of a further round of free trade negotiations, this time with an actual focus on development.
Where’s the ‘Fair’ in Free Trade?
Free trade according to the WTO is roughly defined as trade on ‘a level playing field’. In other words free trade involves fair trade, so that not only are goods and services exchanged with a minimum of tariffs and trade barriers but that conditions of production or service provision are equitable among all involved parties.
As far as I understand, a trade in agricultural goods produced with the benefit of monetary aid given to farmers by their rich governments who can afford such corporate welfare programs does not constitute fair trade. All things equal, would you not expect the student who went to private school to be more successful, bear more fruit if you will, than the kid who went to PS 117?
This variance of the circumstances under which agricultural goods are produced in the subsidy-heavy developed world versus the developing world produces a foreseeable disadvantage for the latter party when it comes to competitiveness in the global market. When disadvantage of circumstance (not ability) becomes foreseeable, is that not considered unfairness? If we choose to ignore such unfairness is that not injustice? Why must certain parties in the Doha free trade negotiations pretend that agricultural subsidies don’t eliminate the ‘fair’ in free trade?
Budging Only When Bombs Fall: Collective Lethargy in Dealing With Hezbollah
As Israel continues to pound southern Lebanon with rocket fire, one thing becomes increasingly clear. This is not a battle waged so much to recover two captured Israeli soldiers but to destroy Hezbollah. Israel’s air strikes will continue until it deems Hezbollah no longer a threat. But while Israel has a right to defend itself against a terrorist enemy, what is curious about this battle is that the Lebanese government would like to see that enemy controlled as well.
It seems rather contradictory to attempt to root out Hezbollah, a state within a state, by attacking the state itself, Lebanon. Though Israel may be trying to contain its attacks to Hezbollah strongholds in southern Lebanon, there is no doubt that it has weakened the infrastructure and ability of the Lebanese government and Prime Minister Siniora to take charge of his own country.
Israel’s attacks have only weakened the Lebanese government’s ability to check Hezbollah’s activities and assert autonomous control over Lebanon. Prior to the July 12 attacks, the Lebanese armed forces did not have the capacity to subdue Hezbollah militia. In Lebanon’s weakened state, they can do little more to achieve this end. Furthermore, now under full Israeli attack, Prime Minister Siniora could not reasonably command the use of Lebanese troops to disarm Hezbollah, who is for all intents and purposes Lebanon’s only defense in this crisis.
So what end is it Israel hopes to achieve by mounting a massive military campaign against the state of Lebanon? One; it can weaken the military capabilities of Hezbollah and two; it can hasten the speed with which the Lebanese government deals with this state within a state. And this is exactly what has come of Israel’s attacks. Only one day after Israel began air strikes, Lebanese officials began to plan for the bolstering of government control in southern Lebanon. A week later, Prime Minister Siniora made urgent calls to the international community for help in obtaining a ceasefire and controlling Hezbollah.
Which brings me to my final point. Why must it take military air strikes and civilian deaths for Lebanon to call for aid in controlling Hezbollah and for the international community to offer it? UN Security Council Resolution 1559 calling for disarmament of Hezbollah has been in place for almost 2 years. There is an international consensus that Hezbollah needs to be disarmed. Prime Minister Siniora desires autonomous control over his country. Must we wait for civilian deaths and humanitarian crisis before we act on diplomatic agreements? Do we only budge on UN resolutions when bombs fall?
Israel’s Ultimatum to Lebanon or the Arab World?
As the offensive between Israel and Lebanon escalates, Israel has emerged as the more hostile of the mutual aggressors. On Thursday, Israel launched a second round of airstrikes on the Lebanese international airport in retaliation to an attack on its northern port of Haifa. The attack is attributed to the Lebanese Islamist group, Hezbollah.
Both sides have accused the other of “acts of war”. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called the attacks and abduction of two Israeli soldiers an “act of war”. Lebanese Interior Minister Ahmed Fatfat called Israel’s retaliatory attack on Beirut airport a “general act of war”. According to these statements, it would seem Lebanon is responsible for the first ‘act of war’ in this escalating conflict due to the abduction of two Israeli soldiers. But when compared to Israel’s response, airstrikes on Beirut International airport, there seems to be an issue of disproportionality.
Russia, France and the EU have identified Israel’s response to the abduction of the two Israeli soldiers as disproportionate. But it is probable that Israel’s attack isn’t all about abducted soldiers but an attempt to deliver an ultimatum message to the Lebanese government to rid itself of Hezbollah. Israeli ambassador to the US, Daniel Ayalon has said, “We (Israel) will have to continue with the operation until there is no capability of the Hezbollah to do what they are doing.”
But Israel’s message may have extended beyond Lebanon. Syria for one seems braced to rally the Arab world in war against Israel were Israel to extend its attacks to Syria’s boarders. According to Syrian news sources the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has already stated intentions to “fiercely respond” were Israel to attack Syria. Such an attack, Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying, “[would] be considered like attacking the whole Islamic world.” While Israel may be able to safely flex its muscles with regards to Lebanon, a collected Arab world may prove a worthier opponent.
Iraq Withdrawal: Not so “Cut and Dry”
The US Supreme Court dealt a blow to the Bush administration on Thursday when it ruled that the government had overstepped its boundaries in setting up military tribunals for inmates at Guantanamo Bay detention center. The unfavorable ruling comes amidst persistently low job approval ratings and public pessimism about the War in Iraq, both of which Democrats hope to capitalize on in upcoming House and Senate mid-term elections.
Democrats hope to appeal to the public’s frustration at the rising death-toll and price tag of the War in Iraq and have recently made calls for a withdrawal deadline or “phased withdrawal” of US troops. But while withdrawal would win the favor of the American public it would not bode well with the international community. The US has already come under international scrutiny for its part in the illegal transport of CIA terror detainees across European borders. In addition, the Supreme Court has deemed its military tribunals as contravening the Geneva Convention. In the midst of such international skepticism, the US can hardly afford to lessen its esteem in the eyes of its much needed partners in the War on Terror.
And that is exactly what a premature troop withdrawal would do. What those who strongly support such a move may not realize is that the rest of the world is attentively making a note of how the US handles what has essentially become its charge – the situation in Iraq. To withdraw troops at a point when Iraq is in a state of impending civil war would display a lack of responsibility and commitment to finish the job one started. Republicans have rightly described the recent proposals for withdrawal as “cut and run” and “cut and jog”. With the international community keeping close record of US actions in Iraq, perhaps someone should explain to the democrats that withdrawal is not so “cut and dry”.
Millennium Goal Number Two…
“Ensure, that by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary education.” Second only to “eradicate extreme hunger and poverty”, achieving universal primary education seems high up on the UN’s list of “things to do” before the end of the next decade. And why shouldn’t it be? Education has rightly been seen as the starting point for effecting change in numerous aspects of human development, be it the eradication of extreme hunger and poverty or halting the HIV/Aids epidemic. But as Millennium Goal Number Two relates to achieving Millennium Goal Number One, merely ensuring universal primary education is hardly enough.
Let’s first establish that Millennium Goals Two through Eight are simply specific objectives along the path to achieving the grand coup, Millennium Goal Numero Uno – the eradication of extreme hunger and poverty. Ensuring environmental sustainability, reducing child mortality, combating HIV/Aids, malaria and other diseases all sound like necessary components to promoting the economic development necessary to end world hunger and poverty. But while all the millennium goals are in clear support of achieving this greater objective, it appears that goal number two falls short.
At the very least, it is the weakest link. But while I don’t advocate the casting out of what could be rightly called shoddy workmanship, Goal Number Two certainly needs some revisiting. Firstly, as far as education serves as a means to prepare youth to participate in the economic development of their countries, primary education is hardly enough. Seven years of formal education will do little to prepare the youth of the world’s poorest nations to combat the threats of poverty and hunger they will confront once having left the formal education system. In fact, even the completion of the standard twelve years of education would prove insufficient. The reality is that in most developing nations, jobs aren’t readily available even for the most qualified. And while this may be true in the developed world as well, as evidenced by Singapore’s labor market, youth in developing nations don’t even have the option of accepting positions below their qualifications.
But they can create employment opportunities of their own through the creation of businesses and entrepreneurial enterprises and in many regions have been shown to be quite good at it. In developing countries where the output of high-school and college graduates vastly outnumbers the availability of jobs in the formal wage sector, it is essential that youth be able to create employment opportunities for themselves. This requires not only that they receive more than seven years of schooling but also an education that is geared specifically towards enabling them to create sustainable entrepreneurial enterprises upon leaving. Were this educational focus to be incorporated into the current universal educational goal, not only would young people have created employment opportunities for themselves. They would have directly contributed to the economic development of their countries, helping to eradicate extreme hunger and poverty. What currently remains the weakest link in the UN’s global development model, has every potential to become its corner stone.
An Insincere Offering? US Commitment to Free Trade in the Caribbean Basin
In recent weeks, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the United States have agreed to resuscitate a long-dormant Trade and Investment Council (TIC) between the trading partners. Caribbean media sources have described this development as a boost for Caribbean-US trade relations as it is hoped that the council will facilitate trade and investment related issues between the two sides. But while the TIC forms another forum for trade discussion between CARICOM and the US, it is unlikely to prove fruitful in reaching any major trade agreement.
This skepticism was intimated by US Trade Representative Rob Portman soon after reaching the agreement with CARICOM Trade Ministers. In subsequent comments, Congressman Portman indicated that while the US is committed to arriving at free trade agreement with CARICOM, advancement in trade negotiations is dependent on the progress of troubled talks at the WTO level. In short, revitalization of the TIC means little without a US commitment to negotiations at the WTO Level.
However, WTO free trade negotiations have remained mired at the contentious issue of agriculture. While CARICOM counts itself among the developing nations who would like to see developed countries make more concessions in an agriculture free trade agreement, such is unlikely to result given the general trend such negotiations have taken. Since the inception of the Doha Round of WTO talks, it seems that developing nations have been the ones at the short end of the stick in agriculture free trade negotiations. While several developing countries have already lost preferential market arrangements and have been thrown into competition with large-scale agricultural producers, developed nations have been dragging their feet in abandoning the agricultural subsidies enjoyed by their producers. Such is the case with the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy(CAP) which though in the process of a lethargic phasing out, still represents a gross disadvantage to developing agricultural producers who receive little to no subsidy.
It is ironic that developing nations have been the first to make a sacrifice in the progression of a universal free trade policy. One of the stated ambitions of the 2001 Doha meeting of the WTO was that developing nations should get a trade round for free. This was to ensure that developing nations would not be the first to make concessions in order to secure the benefits of free trade. Five years later, we can see that it is the opposite that has happened. While developing nations have born the brunt of the initial sacrifices necessary for free trade, developed nations are holding on obstinately to their agricultural subsidies.
What does all of this spell for the newly agreed upon CARICOM-US TIC. It means that without a willingness to make sacrifices at the WTO level, a US commitment to advancing free trade with CARICOM at a regional level is not likely to result in much progress. Given the US track record of making such sacrifices, I wouldn’t advise CARICOM trade negotiators to hold their breath.