Weapon of Massive Consumption

"Life’s about film stars and less about mothers/ It's all about fast cars and passing each other/ But it doesn't matter cause I’m packing plastic/ And that’s what makes my life so fucking fantastic/ And I am a weapon of massive consumption/ Its not my fault, its how I'm programmed to function."

Lily Allen in I Don't Know

As I try to be a more ethical consumer, I'm astounded by how much every day things actually cost. We as a society have built our lives around huge discount stores and fast food restaurants. The items may be cheap, but the overall cost is not. Most of us realize now why things from China are so cheap, but its a bigger problem than that. Slave labor is also a factor. If something is so cheap that the company couldn't possibly be making a profit from it, look at it again. Something, somewhere is very wrong.

This article from the Economist describes the latest statistics of human trafficking and the slave labor market. While it does focus a lot on women being forced into prostitution, the numbers they quote about this black market industry are pretty shocking. The trade is too big to affect only a small group of countries, but the recent study that was conducted by the State Department failed to study the business in America as well.

Also check out this in depth analysis from the BBC on 21st century slavery and just how prevalent it reportedly is in the US.

In China, one of the fastest growing economies in the world right now, and where we get many of our products, extensively uses forced labor from their prison camps. These camps are aimed at brainwashing and reforming political and religious dissidents. Even more disturbing are the stories of children in bonded labor in India.

Globalization can have remarkable benefits for everyone. But as it stands now, its bulldozing over nearly as many people. For more information on just how incredibly crazy and important all this is, check out the International Labour Organization's Publications site.

Don't just hop on the Going Green bandwagon, hop on the Go Fair bandwagon as well. Because really, if we're going to blindly conform to anything isn't this the best way to go?

I'll hold my breath and turn blue if you don't talk to me!

According to an article in The Economist, not talking to "the enemy" can be just as effective, if not more, than actual talking.

Not talking doesn't mean we ignore diplomacy all together and get to the stick. It means talks themselves can be used as leverage. You want to talk? Ok, but you have to do something first to show you're serious about it.

"For decades Israel and America said they would not talk to the Palestine Liberation Organisation until Yasser Arafat renounced terrorism. Eventually, he did. The same tactic might make Hamas, Hizbullah or Iran drop their stated plan to eliminate the Jewish state. A tactic, however, is not a principle. Choosing the right one requires guessing how much value the other side places on talking, and what it might pay for the privilege. Israel, incidentally, is currently in talks not only with Syria but also, indirectly, with Hamas."

Fun times.

Ha!

I thought I'd share this cute little cartoon from The Economist.com with you all. I especially like that the tank doesn't specifically say "USA", but rather just "The West". I don't know if Russia considers itself part of the West, but they've certainly had a few problems with navigating Afghanistan, haven't they? I love it. How do you guys feel about it?

The Danger Continues

The latest edition of The Economist has explored the question of Pakistan as the most dangerous nation in the same way Newsweek did a few months ago. The opinion piece, The World's Most Dangerous Place, does good to recognize that the threat of Islamic extremism in Pakistan is a relatively new crisis. One need only look at the ideas of Mr. Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan, to see the kind of progressive movements and ideas that have come forth in the country.

In contrast to the Newsweek article, the focus of this piece seems to point to Pakistan as a dangerous nation to its people instead of as a danger to American interests. Like Lamis Andoni's blog response on Post Global, the article also points to how external forces have also contributed to Pakistan's instability.

So, ironically, America's support for Mr Musharraf, justified as necessary to combat extremism next door, has fostered extremism at home. Similarly, in the 1980s America backed General Zia ul Haq, a dictator and Islamic fundamentalist, as his intelligence services sponsored the mujahideen who eventually toppled the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan. In the process, they helped create what Miss Bhutto called a “Frankenstein's monster”—of jihadist groups with sympathisers in the army and intelligence services. The clubbable, whisky-quaffing, poodle-cuddling Mr Musharraf is no fundamentalist. But the monster still stalks his security forces.

Happily, the author does offer a bright spot, seeing a solution to all the crises.

Yet Pakistan's plight is not yet hopeless. Two things could still help arrest its slide into anarchy, improbable though both now seem. The first is a credible investigation into Miss Bhutto's murder and the security-service lapses (or connivance) that allowed it to happen. Mr Musharraf's willingness to let a couple of British policemen help the inquiry is unlikely to produce this. Every time a bomb goes off in Pakistan, people believe that one of the country's own spooks lit the fuse. Until there has been a convincing purge of the military-intelligence apparatus, Pakistan will never know true stability.

Second, there could be a fair election. This would expose the weakness of the Islamist parties. In the last general election in 2002, they won just one-tenth of the votes, despite outrageous rigging that favoured them. Even if they fared somewhat better this time, they would still, in the most populous provinces, Sindh and Punjab, be trounced by the mainstream parties. An elected government with popular support would be better placed to work with the moderate, secular, professional tendency in the army to tackle extremism and bring Pakistan's poor the economic development they need.

And the final awesome conclusion.

Sadly, there seems little hope that the security forces will abandon the habit of a lifetime and allow truly fair elections. The delay in the voting—opposed by both main opposition parties—has been seen as part of its plan to rig the results. The violence that has scarred the country since Miss Bhutto's assassination may intensify. The army may be tempted to impose another state of emergency; or it may cling on to ensure that the election produces the result it wants—a weak and pliable coalition of the PPP and Mr Musharraf's loyalists.

For too long, Mr Musharraf has been allowed to pay lip-service to democratic forms, while the United States has winked at his blatant disdain for the substance. The justification has been the pre-eminent importance of “stability” in the world's most dangerous place. It is time to impress upon him and the generals still propping him up that democracy is not the alternative to stability. It is Pakistan's only hope.