Warwick Global Development Society
IN THIS ISSUE
ARTICLES
Gendering Global Governance
By Shirin M. Rai
2
Stronger Voices from the South in the
WTO
3
The Political Economy of Groundnuts: A
bitter after-taste for Senegalese society
6
WELCOME!
By Serdar Altay
By Abou Fall
Italy and Il Mezzogiorno: The case for a
developmental view
8
By Enrico Fassi
GETTING INVOLVED
Indicorps
By Meera Manek
Stop Violence Against Women
By James Duggan
CONFERENCE AND SEMINAR REPORTS
A Lot to Teach, Little to Learn: The U.S.
and International Human Rights
9
10
11
By Vulindlela Ndlovu
God and the City on a Hill: Human Rights
After 9/11
12
The Latin America-Europe Relationship
13
By Jason Robinson
By Javier Gomez Malfavon
FEATURE POEM
Introduction
14
La United Fruit Company
15
By Mathew Doidge
By Pablo Neruda
Newsletter
Vol.3 No.1, January 2005
Happy New Year!!!
And on behalf of everyone on the
Newsletter Committee of the Warwick
University
Global
Development
Society, we want to welcome you to
the first edition of the WGDS
Newsletter for the 2004-2005 academic
year. We have worked very hard to
make of this Newsletter a brand new
and fresh experience for all of you.
We hope you will enjoy it and find the
articles of interest, coming as they do
from the four corners of our globalised
world. We want to thank our writers for
their collaboration and time, and for
providing us with excellent material
when we know they had other class
deadlines to meet. Thanks guys!
Last, but not least, many of you will
laugh and find yourselves identifying
with Vu’s Rant, one of our fresh
ingredients for this Newsletter, not to
mention what Keith’s kids have to say!
Enjoy!
ON A MUCH LIGHTER NOTE…
My Dad and University
16
Vu’s Rant
17
By
Keith
Addenbrooke,
Stephanie
Addenbrooke, Rebekah Addenbrooke and
Hannah Addenbrooke
By Vulindlela Ndlovu
1
Gendering Global Governance
Shirin M. Rai
Professor of Politics and International Studies
Director: MA/Dip Globalization and Development, University of Warwick
In an article that will be published in the
International Feminist Journal of Politics in
December, I examine the concept of global
governance. I see governance as a gendered
system of rules and mechanisms that
translate these rules for ‘public life’ bounded
by and constitutive of discursive, political and
economic power. Governance includes multiple
actors as well as multiple sites, thus taking away the
state-centric approach to rule-making and
implementation. Both global and governance are
contested and important concepts. The first
indicates the scope and scale of today’s world of
production, consumption and exchange and the
other
encapsulates
the
shift
from
‘state/government’ to ‘multi-layered’ governance
not only of states and markets but also of interstate
relations and security. I argue that the shift from
government to governance is a response to the
needs of a gendered global capitalist economy and
is shaped by struggles, both discursive and material,
against the unfolding consequences of globalisation.
In making my case I review three key areas in the
global governance debate. These are the place of
globalised markets and new regulatory regimes, the
place of the state within the global political
economy and the challenges it faces, and the
processes of democratisation that can be seen as a
bridge between shifts in state/market relations and
the emerging governance framework. I argue that
mainstream global governance debates would
gain much from the insights that feminists
have developed on key issues of knowledge,
reasoning and epistemic communities, on the
economic and social consequences of
disciplinary neoliberalism and on the politics
of engagement with institutions of power. I
also suggest that this shift from government poses
challenges for feminist political practice. These
challenges are both of scholarship and of activism
as feminists struggle to address the possibilities and
politics of alternatives to the current regimes of
governance.
Four different strands become visible when we
examine the context in which ‘governance’ emerged
as a discourse. First, was the collapse of the Soviet
Union and the beginning of the post-Cold War
period in the international system. Second, and
building on this, was the convergence of economic
policies under globalisation within the neo-liberal
framework which, arguably, are being embedded
through mechanisms of global governance. Third,
as a consequence of the collapse of ‘communism’
and the rise and dominance of the neo-liberal
framework in the global economy, was a reexamination of the role of the state in the context
of the post-Cold War globalisation. And finally, was
the emergence of the discourse of democratisation
as the most appropriate framework within which
2
both political and economic transitions could be
accomplished – democracy became the bulwark
against both forms of totalitarianism as well as the
return to state managed economies. The concept,
indeed ideology, of global governance has come to
take account of all these strands.
Feminist engagements with global governance have
built upon the insights derived from the debates on
the market and the state as well as on processes of
democratisation. Meyer and Prugl have defined
three different feminist approaches to global
governance. First, gender in global governance is
seen as “involving institutional structures in which
women have found or carved out niches for
themselves and their interests as women” and
therefore “introduce into global governance
women-centred ways of framing issues…” (1999:45). Second, gender in global governance is
approached through critical politics “exploring the
purposive,
goal-oriented…social-movement
strategies to influence the United Nations…” and
Bretton Woods institutions (p. 5). Finally, feminists
have approached gender politics in the context of
global governance as “contestations of rules and
discursive practices in different issue areas” (Meyer
and Prugl, 1999:5). They have done so by not only
focusing on the consequences of the dominant
global neo-liberal economic policy frameworks
espoused by the Bretton Woods institutions, but
also the constitutive gendered nature of the
concepts used to formulate these policies (Elson,
1995, Bakker, 1994; Rai, 2003).
In the article, I suggest that as a concept, global
governance becomes prominent in the context of
disciplinary neo-liberalism and can be seen to be
institutionalising the neo-liberal framework at the
level of macro-economic policy. In his critique of
the work of the Commission on Global
Governance, Baxi comments on the discrepancy
between the assumptions of globality by the
Commission and the “central facts of contemporary
world disorder” (1996: 530). Violence and poverty
in particular are growing apace, and both affect
women in particular ways. The feminisation of
poverty, and violence against women in creating
and policing new and old inter-state borders has
made this co-operative development a fraught
discourse for women. In this context Baxi rightly
comments that, “If governance is to be conceived
as a process, it is well to recall that process is
permeated by structures-in-dominance, both in
states and civil societies.” (p. 532) The
contradictions that arise out of capitalism’s march
across the globe are embedded in social relations of
inequalities based on class, gender, ethnicities and
religions among others. The assessment of the
processes and institutions of governance need to be
aware of these contradictions and the power
relations that frame them.
Stronger Voices from South in the WTO
Serdar Altay
MA student in International Political Economy, University of Warwick
Civil Servant in the Under-Secretariat of Foreign Trade, Turkey (since 2000)
The World Trade Organization (WTO)
was established after eight years of
multilateral negotiations called the
Uruguay Round, under the auspices of
the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs
(GATT) signed in 1947. Today, the Organization
has more legal power over member states than any
other international organization in human history.
It owes this power to its famous “Dispute
Settlement Mechanism”, binding members,
including USA, Japan and other developed
countries, to implement WTO Agreements. The
WTO, as the keeper of the rules of the game, serves
economic liberalisation more effectively than the
IMF and World Bank do. However, it is obvious
that after the transformation of GATT to WTO as
a
“democratic”
international
organization,
developing countries have been gradually playing a
much more determining role in shaping the trade
regime. Here, after a brief historical review of the
GATT system and the integration of the
South into it, our focus will be on recent
developments
demonstrating
the
increasing and evolving role played by
the Southern bloc(s) in the WTO.
GATT was signed in 1947, a few years after the
Bretton Woods Conference that gave birth to the
IMF and World Bank. It was actually designed as an
“interim” agreement to remain in force until an
International Trade Organisation (ITO) could be
established. Since this was never realized, GATT
remained as the basic rule-keeper in the liberal
trading system until 1995. Its basic principles were
liberalisation, reciprocity and “non-discrimination”
among countries in terms of eliminating protective
instruments. Non-discrimination is still the basic
rule and is guaranteed under the Article I Most
Favoured Nation (MFN) principle.
3
However, the main deficiencies of GATT 1947
were its “quasi-organizational status” (with a
Secretariat in Geneva) and, ironically, its lack of
binding force over contracting parties in legal
terms. Moreover, it was debatable whether it
included agriculture, and textiles and clothing
sectors, which were engines of development in
many poor countries. Therefore during the half
century, liberalisation took place only in
manufactured industrial products, and mainly by
tariff reductions whose framework was decided by
repeated multilateral negotiations, called “rounds”1.
Until the establishment of the much more powerful
WTO at the end of the Uruguay Round (UR), the
Third World reserved to be integrated into the
system by new accessions to GATT. Parallel to the
decolonisation process and the establishment of
UNCTAD in 1964, the Agreement evolved in
favour of “non-aligned” countries. Following
pressure from the South, the famous Part IV (Trade
and Development) was injected into the text of
GATT 1947. This opened the way for “special and
differential treatment” (S&D) to less developed
countries and a flexibility to make less tariff
reductions in a longer period of time with regard to
the developed countries. It was a positive deviation
from the basic reciprocity rule. Although it was, for
some countries, a global victory of the non-aligned
movement, Part IV flexibilities brought no concrete
benefits because of the blurred language and the
inherent deficiencies of the GATT mechanism.
A second noteworthy improvement favouring
developing countries took place in the 1970s.
UNCTAD called for another deviation from the
MFN principle by forcing developed countries to
apply the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP),
giving less developed countries preferential access
to Northern markets in exports of certain listed
products. GSP became a legal policy permanently
after the 1979 decision at the end of the Tokyo
Round. However, the unilateral preferences given
by developed countries under GSP regime were
based on arbitrary selection criteria in terms of
countries and product groups, and were open to
abuse.2
In sum, until the launch of UR, developing
countries could get moderate trade concessions
from the developed world. The concessions gained
at the negotiation table were not under clear
guarantee be it of GSP or other “special and
differential
treatment”
(S&D)
provisions.
Nevertheless, they resisted any expansion of the
trade regime to include new issues that would
further harm their interests.
It was the UR that transformed the trading regime,
enlarging its coverage and setting-up enforcement
mechanisms. During this round, despite all
resistance from the Third World, particularly as a
result of US pressure and a Northern alliance, new
sectors and issues were incorporated into the
system. After almost eight years of negotiations
among a select of countries, more than twenty new
binding legal texts were ready to be signed in a
single package. New rules included services and
(trade-related) intellectual property rights (TRIPS).
As a trade-off, the developing countries were
offered a phase-out of all restrictive instruments on
textiles and clothing products over a period of 10
years under the Textiles and Clothing Agreement.
Agriculture was in the package, but with a vague
“framework” agreement legitimising exceptionality
of the sector, and therefore use of trade-distorting
subsidies, utilised mainly by the EU and Japan.
Although the Final Act was signed by 123 countries
in Marrakesh, UR negotiations were actively
negotiated by only 20-30 countries, due to a lack of
human capacity and economic resources among
developing countries. The details between the lines
of new legal texts were later uncovered when the
implementation started.3 The cost of their lack of
participation in the negotiation of the texts was paid
with ongoing barriers in the Northern markets and
the burden of domestic application of new “trade
related” commitments.
However, after the UR, there is a clear increase in
participation of the developing countries in the socalled
democratic
WTO
decision-making
mechanism. The developing countries built up a
resistance bloc, when the developed countries
attempted to inject further “new issues” into the
agenda, to make new multilateral binding rules on
labour standards, environment and the Singapore
issues4. The Third Ministerial Conference in Seattle
(December 1999) was a turning-point for
developing countries with the support of NGOs.
The Seattle Ministerial ended without any
declaration, due to the resistance from the South to
the launching of a new Round including new
issues5.
On the other hand, at the Fourth Ministerial in
Doha (November 2001), developing countries had
to accept the launch of a new Round, under the
shadow of September 11. Conversely, they have
successfully managed to put “development” at the
centre of a wide range of issues of the Millennium
Round. The Doha Declaration, launching the new
round (Doha Development Agenda) and
constituting a compromise between two spheres of
the world, covered many issues concerning most
WTO membership. A separate declaration6
prepared by African countries had also to be
accepted by the US. It cleared the way for cheaper
generic pharmaceuticals to be imported by African
countries from countries like India and Brazil
(which had been forbidden according to the TRIPS
Agreement), particularly for public health problems
resulting from HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria
and other epidemics. Again, due to enormous
resistance particularly from the least developed
countries, the Singapore issues remained out of the
package until a concrete decision could be taken in
4
the next Ministerial Conference at Cancun
(September 2003). However, the collapse in Seattle
was repeated in Cancun, with no consensus reached
after five days of negotiations on agriculture and
the inclusion of “new issues” in the WTO legal
structure.
Particularly in agriculture, the historical joint
proposal of the EU and US was reacted to by the
Southern members with the establishment of the
Group of 20 (G-20)7 led by Brazil and including a
new WTO member, China. The G-20 responded to
the US-EU joint attack on Southern markets with a
counter-proposal demanding the elimination of
export subsidies and an ambitious reduction of
protective measures in the Northern markets. Four
African countries8 launched the “cotton initiative”
calling for the immediate end of export subsidies in
cotton products that decrease world prices against
poor producers. This initiative was supported by
the African and least developed countries group,
known as the G-90.
After a post-Cancun shock, the US and EU started
bilateral negotiations with these groups and
countries to find a common solution to get the
Round underway. During a year of compulsory
delay in the round, the search for a solution to the
benefit of all was continued until a new road map
was produced. Last July, instead of an extensive
Cancun Declaration missed one year ago, a General
Council Decision on a “framework” road map was
accepted by members. The Decision text excluded
investment,
competition
and
government
procurement from future negotiations, including
only trade facilitation, with a vague language
imposed by India and some African countries,
without a clear burden on Southern state
governments. The EU at last clearly promised to
phase out its agricultural subsidies in a modality to
be set out in the round. Although the new text does
not reflect all demands of each and every country in
the South, as a framework it contained common
concerns.
The Doha Declaration had predicted the
conclusion of the round by January 1, 2005. The
framework package delayed it to the end of 2006,
the time the Sixth WTO Ministerial will be held in
Hong Kong. This is the first delay in the Doha
Round, but probably will not be the last. The
developing countries are today more aware that
they are powerful in negotiations if they act
together. If they maintain cooperation against the
US and others, the round will take more time than
UR but obviously with much more favourable
results
on
behalf
of
the
South.
Between 1947 and 1994, until WTO came into being, 8
multilateral trade negotiations took place. For brief information
on their duration and coverage see Table I.
2 The USA particularly used its infamous Special 301 Act to
shape its GSP regime as part of bilateral economic/political
relations. The preparation of its unilateral GSP lists of countries
and products was correlated with domestic protection of
intellectual property rights in the beneficiary countries.
3 As a good example, the TRIPS Agreement, with its
overwhelming provisions on copyrights and patent protection,
placed unbearable burdens on to poor countries, while it had no
clear obligations for developed countries to provide a
continuation of technology transfers to the South. The “piracy”
of technological innovations that played a key role in the
development of Japan and the South East Asian countries, was
no longer possible. On the other hand, the General Agreement
on Trade in Services (GATS) envisaged access for service sectors
of the North into the Southern markets. The complicated
language of the Agreement on Agriculture provided sufficient
space to continue protecting Northern markets from Southern
products. Other agreements on goods also contained many
provisions preventing exports from Southern to Northern
markets either by new standards of sanitary or quality
requirements.
4 In the First Ministerial Conference in Singapore in 1996, new
issues were taken into the “discussion” agenda. The so-called
Singapore issues are trade and investment, trade and
competition, government procurement, and trade facilitation
aimed at the simplification and standardisation of customs
regimes of member countries.
5 Another reason was ongoing debate on agricultural supports
and subsidies.
6 For the “Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public
Health”
see
http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/min
decl_trips_e.htm
7 The initial proposal for the so-called G-20 was submitted by
Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica,
Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, India, Mexico,
Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, South Africa,
Thailand and Venezuela. Later some countries withdrew from
active participation in further initiatives due to pressure from the
USA and the EU. However, the group is still active in WTO
negotiations.
8 Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mali.
1
5
Table I: Multilateral Rounds and Subjects Covered
Year
Place/name of the Round
Subjects covered
Countries
1947
Geneva
Tariffs
23
1949
Annecy
Tariffs
13
1951
Torquay
Tariffs
38
1956
Geneva
Tariffs
26
1960-1961
Geneva
Dillon Round
Tariffs
26
1964-1967
Geneva
Kennedy Round
Tariffs and anti-dumping measures
62
1973-1979
Geneva
Tokyo Round
Tariffs,
non-tariff
agreements
1986-1994
Geneva
Uruguay Round
New
measures,
Agreements
“framework” 102
on
Goods:
123
GATT 1994, Agriculture, Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures , Textiles and Clothing, Technical Barriers to
Trade , Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs),
Anti-dumping , Customs valuation , Preshipment
Inspection, Rules of Origin, Import Licensing ,
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, Safeguards
General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS),
Agreement
on
Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), Dispute
Settlement Understanding etc.
2001-
?
Geneva
Doha Development Agenda
Implementation of UR Agreements and related issues
and concerns; Agriculture; Services; Market access
for non-agricultural products; Trade-related aspects
of intellectual property rights (TRIPS); WTO rules:
anti-dumping,
subsidies,
regional
trade
agreements; Trade and environment; Small
economies; Trade, debt and finance; Trade and
transfer of technology; Technical cooperation and
capacity building; Least-developed countries;
Special and differential treatment; Trade facilitation
148
Source: WTO
The Political Economy of Groundnuts
A bitter after-taste for Senegalese Society
Abou Fall
MA student in Globalisation and Development, University of Warwick
One of the most enjoyable early
experiences of my life was participating
at the yearly harvest of groundnuts (or
peanuts) in Senegal. My grandfather
grew groundnuts, and to celebrate the
harvest, a small portion of the
groundnuts was put in a burning circle
for some time. We would then crack them open
and enjoy the rich oily taste of the roasted seeds.
Little did I know then that I was a
participant in a large political and
economic agenda drawn by the French
colonialists, then perpetuated by the
leaders of our new independent country,
a country still modelling its future after
being crafted through the Scramble of
Africa starting in 1886.
This little introduction allows me to discuss just a
few of the consequences of groundnuts production
6
in Senegal since colonialism, and pushes me to
argue that such cash crop has completely altered,
for the most part negatively, the fabric of
Senegalese society.
Senegal gained early exposure to European trade,
starting in 1444 with the Portuguese who
established trade posts along the Senegal River. It is
worth pointing out that Gorée, an island just three
kilometres off the coast, became a major slave
transit post during that time, facilitating the slave
trade, and giving an easy access route to most
European traders. Senegal became a French colony
in 1626 with initial settlements in Saint Louis.1
Senegal became, around World War II, a major
groundnuts producing colony, as a cash crop.
One of the first consequences of the groundnuts
monoculture was the clearing of land, and
encouragement of deforestation and desertification
in an ecosystem that became more fragile, the
Sahel. The environmental damage meant that
Senegal had started destroying one of its key
resources early on, and has ever since reduced the
possibility of sustainable development.
The second consequence has been the downgrading
of traditional food crops such as millet, sorghum,
maize, and rice. Colonialism introduced a shift in
the dietary habits of Senegalese society by making
rice consumption more predominant through
imports from Asia. It should however be noted that
“rice has been an integral part of the history and
culture of Africa, where it has been cultivated for
more than 3000 years.”2 Rice, and wheat have now
become the symbols of our national diet. Most of
the Senegalese population require a daily diet
allowance of bread for breakfast (made out of
wheat which must be imported), and rice for lunch
(the preference being 100% broken rice from Asia).
Locally produced rice is too expensive for the local
market.
In addition to changes in the national diet, changes
also occurred in the gender organization of
agricultural labour. Men were attracted by
groundnuts production. Women concentrated in
what became lower category crops. It remains clear
that the focus on monoculture by the colonialists
and the new leaders creates a greater burden on
women engaged in traditional crop production,
since no major investment is put into such crops.
There is a deliberate focus on the environmental
effects of groundnut production, and the gendered
transformation that occurred, as well as the cultural
modifications, especially through diet, and its
ramifications on health, and the politics of
reproduction.
The
environment,
female
empowerment, and culture are three critical levers
for sustaining the social fabric.
Over the past few years, as I have driven
throughout Senegal, I have seen a clear
manifestation of how groundnut production has
transformed our state of being and doing. There is
clear evidence of environmental degradation as you
pass villages, with erratic trees decorating the
landscape, animals nibbling at the scarce leaves or
grass that nature forcefully re-generates. I have seen
women tirelessly prepare fields in anticipation of
evasive rains. I have talked to the elderly who
reminisce about those days when groundnut yields
could generate enough cash for the dry season, only
to see the brutal reality in front of them: soil
erosion, and the encroaching desert in the North.
The elderly and women, with regret but relief, now
believe that their future lies in the hands of young
men who are now urbanised, or have immigrated to
more prosperous lands.
This article, very briefly, has tried to expose how
one crop can create profound mutations in a
particular society. Groundnut culture has created
damage to the scarce environmental assets of
Senegal. It is estimated that “after only two
successive years of peanut growing, there is a loss
of 30 percent of the soil's organic matter and 60
percent of the colloidal humus. In two successive
years of peanut planting, the second year's yield will
be from 20 to 40 percent lower than the first.”3
Groundnut production has amplified the
feminization of poverty, with no investment being
put in crops tended by women. Some evidence
relates to this fact as “with a shortage of labour and
capital, women heads of household are often forced
to make adjustments to cropping patterns and
farming systems. These adjustments have resulted
in decreases in production and, in some cases, shifts
towards less nutritious crops. Not surprisingly,
these households often suffer from increased
malnutrition and food insecurity.”4 It can also be
argued that groundnut production has even
domesticated the taste buds of the Senegalese
population by making rice and bread the staple
foods. There are obviously several other
consequences, but this short piece does not allow
us to delve into them.
This is the story of a young boy who loved the oilrich taste of roasted peanuts, and who grew up
trying to make sense of the bitter after-taste.
World
Statesmen,
‘Senegal’,
http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Senegal.html Accessed on
24/11/04.
2 Africa Rice Center (WARDA), ‘Africa celebrates the
International Year of Rice’, Essence of WARDA-The Africa Rice
Center, Number 5, January-March 2004, p. 3.
3 Frank R. & Chasin B. (1981), ‘Peasants, Peanuts, Profits and
Pastoralists’, quoted by Edward Goldsmith, ‘Development and
Colonialism’, http://www.edwardgoldsmith.com/page27.html
Accessed on 24/11/04
4 FAO, “The feminization of agriculture”,
http://www.fao.org/Gender/en/agrib2-e.htm, Accessed on
24/11/04.
1
7
Italy and Il Mezzogiorno
The case for a developmental view1
Enrico Fassi
MA student in International Relations, University of Warwick
Dottorato di ricerca (Ph.D.) student in Political Representations and Behaviours, Catholic University of Milan
Mezzogiorno is the term used in Italy to refer
to what, in strictly geographical terms, is the
Southern part of the country. It is difficult
to draw a sharp boundary, but we can say
that more or less it comprises the area of
the peninsula below the city of Rome, and
the islands as well. Mezzogiorno though, does
not have a purely geographic connotation.
For Italians, and for everyone who knows
the peculiar history of this county, it implies
much more; the term evokes a long struggle against
a seemingly ineradicable criminality – the far too
well known Mafia with all its collateral activities – a
constant rate of unemployment, double that in the
North, and almost fifty years of unsuccessful
policies designed to address these problems.
All these features seem to suggest that we should
indeed consider the Mezzogiorno case for what it
really is: a case of a developing area inside a
developed country. This may imply the use of
specific analytical tools, which are better suited to
deal with processes and variables peculiar of an area
economically weak, socially backward and politically
unreliable. Indeed, to appreciate the real condition
of these areas, we should probably use theories and
concepts specifically developed in order to
understand the processes of democratisation and
development. We can also apply standard tools of
political science analysis, but with the
acknowledgement that the basic assumptions and
mindset we have in approaching a well functioning
state, may not hold here.
One example of this kind of analysis is the concept
of social capital, mainly developed by Robert
Putnam in his Making Democracy Work: Civic
Traditions in Modern Italy, published in 1993. Putnam
and his collaborators have studied the performance
of regional governments in Italy from their
establishment in 1970. They found that the most
important single determinant, both of the
performance
of
these
democratic
local
governments, and of the differing levels of socioeconomic development in the regions of Italy, is the
factor which they term ‘civic involvement’ or ‘civic
tradition’. This can be measured with reference to
the vibrancy of associational life, newspaper
readership and indicators of political participation.
The causes of this disparity in level of civic
engagement goes back to the Middle Ages
and the establishment of the Norman feudal
kingdom in the South. Meanwhile,
communal republicanism grew in the towns
of northern and central Italy. As a
consequence, the South is characterised by
what he calls ‘amoral familism’: a kind of
social framework in which force and family
provide a primitive substitute for civic
community. The North is characterised by the
existence of ‘networks of civic engagement’ where
‘norms of generalized reciprocity’ have given rise to
a virtuous spiral of ‘brave reciprocity’.
For Putnam, civic engagement gives rise to social
capital, defined as “features of social organization,
such as networks, norms and trust, that facilitate
coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit”
(Putnam, 1993b). This in turn provides the basis
both for effective government and for economic
development. Thus, social capital is a precondition
for economic development and good governance.
For Putnam “Social trust, norms of reciprocity,
networks of civic engagement, and successful
cooperation are mutually reinforcing”, thus, this
concept involves the idea of a sort of path of
dependence, as some authors have pointed out.
This suggests that those societies which have been
historically characterised by ineffective and
inefficient institutions may not easily shift to
another, more virtuous path.
If this analysis is correct, then the implications for
the Mezzogiorno are quite depressing; there can be no
policy, following Putnam’s argument, able to
address the causes that make this area backward
(‘arretrata’). The only way out, in this view, is a long
and slow process of social capital enhancement
through the autonomous establishment of ‘weak
horizontal ties’ in the society. In a nutshell, politics
cannot do anything but wait.
A different argument is proposed by Levy, who
addresses the problems of where the norms of
reciprocity which Putnam assumes actually come
from, and those of the mechanisms which maintain
them. For Putnam, weak associations help build
trustworthiness, and the only way to improve
8
interpersonal trust is through the ‘culturally-defined
templates for future collaboration’ which they
represent. On the other hand, for Levy, “there is
considerable evidence that state institutions can...
lay the basis for generalised trust” (p. 50). The
direct consequence of this approach is that social
capital is indeed constructible, particularly through
State policies.
This represents just a small example of how
theoretical analysis actually translates into policy
suggestions; while Putnam’s analysis suggest a kind
of policy – or non-policy, as it were – Levy’s
conclusion implies a totally different role for the
State. For the specific question of Mezzogiorno, both
approaches have the merit of pointing to peculiar
aspects that can help to explain the difference in
performance. Most importantly, they try to go
beyond the classic economic approach to
understand where the roots of the problems
actually are. None of them represent a definitive
solution but both aid us in understanding the
importance of deepening and expanding our
knowledge of the sociological, economic and
political variables at stake, and of their reciprocal
influences. The implication for all of us is clear; we
must study more.
1 The analysis of Putnam’s work is based on John Harriss And
Paolo De Renzio, “Missing Link or Analytically Missing?: the
concept of Social Capital, Journal of international Development, Vol. 9
(1997), No 7, pp 919-37. Other relevant references are: Levi, M.
`Social and unsocial capital: a review essay of Robert Putnam's
Making Democracy Work', Politics and Society, Vol. 24(1996)., No.
1, pp. 45-55; and Putnam, R. with Leonardi, R. and Nanetti, R.
Y., Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press (1993).
GETTING INVOLVED
CHALLENGE YOURSELF TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE
Meera Manek
Indicorps is a programme offered by Connect India, a UK based charity (undergoing
registration). For further details on how to apply for the Fellowship, frequently asked
questions or further information regarding the fellowship and the UK chapter, please
visit www.indicorps.org or contact meenal@indicorps.org.uk
‘Two roads diverged in a wood, and I... I took
the one less travelled by, and that has made all
the difference’' – Robert Frost
A vast majority of us, at some point,
have felt the urge to undertake some
kind of selfless service in India. We have not lost
sight of this dream, yet our youthful years demand
much of us, and this romantic notion has become
fixated as a future pursuit. If we have decided to
do something, hurdles begin to appear from
nowhere – either the worries of parents or the
working rat-race in England simply envelopes us.
Our dream remains just that – a dream.
However, it is in these youthful years that we have
the energy and idealism through which to channel
our passion. It is our youth that allows us to
continuously challenge ourselves and to strive for
more. It is one year of our youth that we can use
for our development, and for the development of a
nation. There is an opportunity to make a
difference!
Different kinds of opportunities exist for voluntary
service in India. However, very few are
of a structured nature. One such
opportunity is offered by Indicorps, a
non-profit organisation that aims to
build leadership capacity in young people of Indian
origin through service. As its core programme,
Indicorps offers one-year public service fellowships
for people of Indian origin, to explore their
potential through a well-structured programme.
Indicorps creates sustainable grassroots community
projects in conjunction with partner organisations
throughout India. Fellows apply to specific projects
based on their skills and interests. Having initially
attended a month-long orientation programme,
each Fellow will then embark upon his/her
individual project journey. Throughout the year,
ongoing guidance and personal support is given,
together with regular retreats.
Fellows are
encouraged to fully immerse themselves in their
community and to be self-accountable in their
work. It is an intense year of building skills,
9
connecting with the people and developing a
deeper understanding of yourself and India.
By challenging preconceptions and broadening
perspectives, Fellows find a sense of inner reward
and enduring inspiration. By spending time with
people at the grassroots level, Fellows can have a
positive impact on improving the quality of life –
both for themselves and the community in which
they are immersed, while absorbing the richness of
the India that a mere tourist can seldom experience.
Because of the diverse population, spiritually
integrated culture, and stark contrasts in everyday
life unfamiliar in the UK, India is a place that
encourages soul-searching and reflection. Many
Indicorps alumni have remained in India well past
their fellowship year; some have created new
programmes to encourage more people to give back
to India; others continue to serve the community in
their own way. We believe that through our
collective efforts we have the capacity to contribute
to positive change.
Stop Violence Against Women
James Duggan
MA student in Globalisation and Development, University of Warwick
On 5th March 2004 Amnesty International launched a global campaign to Stop
Violence Against Women, focusing on ending violence against women in the family
and in conflict/post-conflict situations: two of the most dangerous sites for women
throughout the world. The creation of a world in which women and girls are afforded
their basic human rights is the ultimate goal.
Although, I think, it’s more useful to
lament that nice people don’t run the
world, the following enjoys a certain
resonance: “if only women ran the world then…
everything/ the trains/ dog mess/ healthy foods
would be better/ punctual/ absent/ tasty (delete as
appropriate or mix-and-match for amusement).
This ‘if… then’ hope bears a stark contrast to the
reality in which women are beaten, trafficked,
sexually exploited and equally ignored.
realistic expectations, the children that
you talk to may witness violence on
their mother or sister, they may grow up
to perpetrate, or suffer from, female-oriented
violence. It is important for these children to learn
that violence is wrong. It is important for these
children to draw parallels between themselves, their
sisters, mothers, and those women who are being
protected in Turkish hostels, and those women who
are being sexually exploited in forced prostitution.
This is why Amnesty started the SVAW (Stop
Violence Against Women) Campaign. The
Campaign’s focus is Sexual Trafficking, shelters for
abused women in Turkey and a nationwide action
to stop violence against women. I will assume the
reader has an understanding of the issues, however
for more information and methods of action visit
www.amnesty.org.uk/svaw/.
To digress slightly, Giddens posits that jokes are an
apt lens for observing a culture, so here’s an
English joke: “What do you tell a woman with two
black eyes? Nothing, you’ve already told her twice.”
This joke emphasizes the sexual subordination that
is expected, justifies the dominance that exists and
highlights the potential violence at the end of every
disagreement. This is an English joke. This is an
issue that must be addressed both at home and
abroad.
This is an appeal for anyone willing to give talks in
schools on the SVAW campaign. I realise that some
people will already be sweating shards of ice at the
thought of talking to a large group of children, but
it can be an extremely rewarding experience. I have
given talks on humanitarian issues in schools and
from my experience schoolchildren react to issues
to which they can relate. I think the SVAW
campaign would work well for this very reason.
Violence is something that many children can
understand. Although it is important to maintain
If this all sounds a little melodramatic, this is an
opportunity to gain transferable skills and it will
look good on your CV.
If anyone would like to give talks in schools on
Amnesty’s SVAW campaign, please contact James
Duggan (James.Duggan@warwick.ac.uk).
10
CONFERENCE AND SEMINAR REPORTS
The United States and Global Human Rights
Oxford University
11 -13th November 2004
th
‘The United States and Global Human Rights’ conference was a three day conference
comprising of over thirty speakers. As the title of the conference suggests, the focus
was on the role the United States plays in Global Human Rights. Ranging from a
combination of key lecturers and authors the topic above was addressed from all sides
and viewpoints. Below are summaries of the talks given by to of the Speakers at the
Conference: Michael Ignatieff (Director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy,
Harvard University) speaking on American Exceptionalism and International Human
rights, and, Michael Goodhart (University of Pittsburgh) speaking on American
Exceptionalism and Human Rights after 9/11.
A Lot to Teach, Little to Learn!
The United States and International
Human Rights
Vulindlela Ndlovu
MA student in Globalisation and Development,
University of Warwick
Michael Ignatieff, focused on the
relationship between the United States and
the promotion of human rights.
He
attempted to deal with two questions:
Firstly, how does Americans’ view of their
constitution and law affect America’s view
of human rights at home and abroad?
Related to that is how does one promote
human rights in the United States and abroad?
Ignatieff argues that Americans view their
constitution as self-sufficient, interpreted within the
national framework. When making decisions,
America’s courts almost never look to precedents
set by courts of other countries. The belief that the
American constitution is sufficient to deal with all
matters that come before the courts means that the
idea of a comparative interpretation of the law is
alien to Americans. For this reason the United
States has been both a leader and outlier in
international human rights law. Americans will
support multilateral regimes and institutions, but
only if they permit exemptions for American
citizens on core issues such as the death penalty.
For example, the United States has refused to sign
the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
because the Convention does not permit capital
punishment or life imprisonment for offences
committed by persons under the age of eighteen.
The argument is that such laws and decisions have
to be reached within the framework of the
American constitution which, as well is being selfsufficient, is, in the view of Americans, legitimised
by democratic practice.
The idea of self-sufficiency and the idea that the
American constitution and laws are
legitimized by democratic practice, not
surprisingly, leads Americans to believe that
they have a lot to teach about human rights,
but little to learn. One might accuse the
Americans of arrogance, as we so often do,
but is that really helpful or useful in the
promotion of human rights? Will simply
telling a Texan like George W. Bush who
believes in the death penalty that it is wrong and
inhumane change his view on it? Michael Ignatieff
argues that it probably won’t. Rather, he suggests
that if we hope to change people’s view on such
issues it is imperative that we establish and facilitate
a dialogue. In the case of the Texan and the death
penalty, one would try and convince the Texan,
through dialogue, that the death penalty is wrong in
the context and framework of the American
constitution – in this case, the Fourteenth
Amendment (the right to due process of law).
Ignatieff believes one can present the argument that
executing people when there is a possibility they
may be cleared of the crime in the future violates
that right. Because the argument is presented
through dialogue and in the context of the
American Constitution, Ignatieff believes the
11
argument will be more convincing to a Texan like
George W. Bush.
Ignatieff argues that in promoting human rights,
whether it is in the United States, or across the
world, the rights have to be ‘home-grown’. If they
are not home-grown then they risk being
imperialistic and paternalistic. However this should
not excuse us from intervening in certain situations
– Ignatieff believes that in some cases intervention
is necessary. Of crucial importance though, is how
we intervene. He gives the example of a Sharia
stoning case in Nigeria where a woman (Amina
Lawal) was sentenced to death by stoning after
being convicted of adultery. Many international
organizations felt obliged to intervene when the
conviction was appealed, but chose to do so
without consulting local organizations that were
acting on behalf of Ms. Lawal. As a result the
campaign by international organizations was largely
inappropriate and had the potential to do more
harm than good (for more details see
bbcnews.com1) whereas consultation might have
found an effective and appropriate role for them.
Mr. Ignatieff argues that the local organizations
were more effective in saving the life of Ms. Lawal
God and the City on a Hill
Human Rights After 9/11
Jason Robinson
MA student in Globalisation and Development,
University of Warwick
Michael Goodhart contended that
although
“under
the
Bush
administration some attitudes towards
human rights have changed”, the
general approach of America on the
issue has simply “undergone a reversion
to form”. He asserted that the foreign
policy of the United States is relatively
consistent with the approach undertaken during the
Cold War. Although he talked of three forms of
American Exceptionalism – Historical; Behavioural
and Providential – it was the latter which he
focused upon. Providential exceptionalism,
because they fully understood Sharia Law and local
law and knew how to work within that framework.
The victory by the local organizations is of crucial
importance because it demonstrated to the local
people that the right to appeal to injustices existed
within their local framework.
Of course there are many instances where it might
be impossible to find a specific right in a local
framework. This still doesn’t excuse us from
intervening. What is important is that dialogue and
an exchange of views is established so that one can
at least begin the process of finding some common
ground. The process might be long and drawn out,
but any intervention that is seen as paternalistic or
imperialistic might result in severe consequences.
This need not only apply to Human Rights, but
could be useful for those working in development
in general, where being aware of local sensitivities
can play a vital role in determining successful
policies.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3024563.stm (last accessed
25/11/04)
1
Goodhart argued, was simply the belief within the
country that they were a chosen nation – a city on a
hill. Dating back to the early European settlers in
British America this notion of exceptionalism
permeated policy thinking until today you have the
idea of “a manifest destiny and God uses it to bring
about democracy”. Addressing points we do not
have time to go into, Goodhart highlighted the
messianic approach of America. Crudely put, he
stated how “Christ did not ask if people wanted to
be saved, he simply came to save”.
Adopted in American policy, this
approach is seen in the failure to ask
people whether they want to be ‘saved’
from the ‘tyranny’ that oppresses them
– do they ask if the women behind the
burkha feel oppressed, no they simply
presume she is oppressed because their
custom does not ‘fit’ into American perception of
how the world should be. This rhetoric has been
seen increasingly often post-9/11 with the adoption
of a neo-conservative American perception of ‘good
vs. evil’.
12
The Latin America-Europe Relationship
University of Warwick
27th October 2004
The Latin America-Europe
Relationship
A brief summary of the Mexican
Ambassador’s visit to Warwick1
Javier Gomez Malfavon
MA student in Globalisation and Development at
Warwick University
27th
On Wednesday
October 2004, Mexican
Ambassador Juan Jose Bremer spoke on The Latin
America-Europe Relationship. This event
was jointly organised by the Latin
American Society and the International
Office of the University of Warwick.
The intention of the following brief
summary of the Ambassador’s presentation is to
highlight important facts about the current
condition of Latin America from a development
perspective, and to examine its historical and
contemporary relationship with Europe. It then
concludes by listing the major challenges this
relationship faces in the context of globalisation.
BASIC FACTS ABOUT LATIN AMERICA
Total Population: 560 million.
Currently 63 million live under US$1 per day, by
2025 it is estimated that 52 million will still live
under US$1 per day.
Currently 169 million live under US$2 per day, by
2025, 145 million will still live under US$2 per day.
The wealthy, around 5% of the total population,
account for 25% of total GDP.
The poorest, which account for 30% of total
population, generate only 7% of GDP.
The wealthiest 10% of the population have an
average income 17 times higher than the poorest
10%, while in the developed world this relationship
is 7 to 1. In other words, Latin America is a middle
and low income region and if not the poorest, is
certainly the most unequal region in the world.
HISTORICAL RELATIONSHIP WITH EUROPE
Everyone knows about the causes and effects of
colonization in Latin America, the imposition of
western culture and the exploitation of human and
material resources for the benefit of European
nations. But are we really aware of the dimension
and impact of the Americas on Europe? The
following extract from the Ambassador’s speech
clarifies this complex interdependent relationship:
“The foundation of the Atlantic relationship changed the
world’s history. The chronicle of this monumental event has
two variants: one thoroughly explored the other less known.
They are two chapters of the same book,
unevenly popularised. The first one concentrated
on how Europe transformed America. The
second, on how America changed Europe.
There is no American who doesn’t know the
first variant, and its impact on his tradition
and on his own destiny. Mestizo America, in the complex
search for its identity, cannot dismiss Europe. For
Europeans, the opposite is less clear because, from the
surface, the impact of the Americas in the life of the Old
World appears to be less decisive.
But the New World changed Europe deeply and irreversibly,
from nourishment to ideas. A rich traffic of men, plants,
animals and even disease was established between both
continents. This so-called “Columbian exchange” benefited
Europeans. Potato lessened the Old Continent’s famine to
such a degree that many associated it to the demographic
expansion of subsequent years. Corn made the rotation of
crops possible, tomato, cocoa and tobacco made traders and
bankers rich.
Sciences, printing, cartography, trade and industry, broadened
their horizons when they engaged in matters from the New
World.
Gold coins from the Americas meant security for economic
transactions. America financed the Sixteenth and
Seventeenth Century wars, and a gap became evident along
those years, between the countries that had, and the ones that
didn’t have access to the New World. “
CONTEMPORARY RELATIONSHIP WITH EUROPE
Despite the historical and cultural bonds, the
relationship and interdependence between both
13
regions has been losing strength. This has happened
mainly because of the enormous cultural influence
and economic expansion of the US throughout the
rest of the continent, and the little importance the
EU has given to this relationship lately in the
context of ongoing economic reforms, inclusion of
more states and the growing challenge on security
issues, as it is described below.
“If we look closely, neither Europe nor Latin America are
homogeneous. Nevertheless, taking into account the complex
knit of similarities and differences, it can be said that, in
contrast with other regions of the world, that we are linked by
a relation of “cultural kinship”…the most relevant aspect of
the Atlantic relationship has been its cultural dimension.
Although we must recognise, regrettably, that remnants of the
old colonial exploitation still exist in our continent.
Europe has approached our region with two attitudes: one as
mater et magistra, and the other with a disposition to learn
more about it and to engage in a productive dialogue. The
latter was the spirit that drove the true European explorers
to discover the realities of the new continent, and their
countless successors in the following centuries, humanists,
utopians, internationalists, anthropologists and social
scientists, who became interested in the new worlds of the
New World, and defended with determination their right to
exist.
In the last decades, Europe’s cultural influence has lost
significant ground in Latin American societies. That space
has been occupied by new languages and forms of
communication, and increasingly, by the content of the U.S.
entertainment industry. There are clear reasons to explain
this phenomenon: cultural globalisation, or more precisely,
imposed globalisation and peripheral marginalisation.
If Europe has lost influence in Latin America, our region, in
its quest for an enhanced presence in these lands, is faced with
a colossal task. The Atlantic dialogue, to be true to its name,
has to be driven by a reciprocal interest and curiosity. To
advance it, it is necessary for the European world to
rediscover Latin America. This interest should go beyond the
areas, distinguished but limited, in which it has been
professionally cultivated. In other words, it has to go beyond
the commendable work of the specialists in Latin American
affairs and reach the common citizen, the man on the street.”
In conclusion, it is in the best interest of both
regions to better understand and rediscover each
other in order to develop a new era of collaboration
and interaction. This must be done in a balanced
multidimensional social, cultural and economic
relationship, which will not only recognise but
greatly benefit Latin America as well. This new
enhanced relationship will lead to faster regional
integration and a stronger multilateral position to
better defend its culture, values and people against
the challenges of a globalising world and a
predatory world market system.
1
The full content of this seminar can be accessed at the
following URL:
http://www.embamex.co.uk/Embajada/Estructura_Embajador
_Discursos_2004-05-25_eng.htm
Sources/ Bibliography:
http://www.embamex.co.uk/Embajada/Estructura_Embajador
_Discursos_2004-05-25_eng.htm
http://www.sre.gob.mx/comunicados/discursos/disc_2004/no
vie/d_45_11.htm
FEATURE POEM
La United Fruit Company
By Pablo Neruda
Introduction
Mathew Doidge
MA student in Globalisation and Development,
University of Warwick
The United Fruit Company (UFC) (now
Chiquita) was established in March 1899 in
Boston, Massachusetts, with the aim of
cultivating large areas of Central America in
order to provide a predictable harvest of bananas,
primarily for the US market. At its zenith, the
United Fruit Company controlled vast tracts of
Central America, with plantations in Colombia,
Costa Rica, Cuba, Guatemala, Jamaica, Nicaragua,
and Panama, and exercised immense power
over the governments of those countries,
earning it the moniker ‘El Pulpo’ (the
Octopus). The UFC several times overthrew
governments considered to be insufficiently
compliant to Company will. In 1910, for
example, an armed group was sent from
14
New Orleans to Honduras to install a new
President by force when the incumbent failed to
grant tax breaks to the UFC. The Company was
subsequently granted a 25-year tax waiver by the
newly installed President.
Nowhere, however, was United Fruit’s power more
in evidence than in Guatemala, where, in addition
to its plantations, the company owned the other
two major enterprises – ‘International Railways of
Central America’ and ‘Empress Electrica’. In
Guatemala, as in other Central American countries,
UFC was unafraid to exercise its power overtly in
pursuit of its economic interests. For many years
UFC prevented the Guatemalan government from
building highways in order to protect the profitable
transportation monopoly of the UFC-owned
railroads. Further, the Guatemalan government of
Colonel Jacobo Arbenz Guzman was toppled
though covert action by the US government in
1954 at the behest of the United Fruit Company,
which was acting in response to the plans of the
government to redistribute uncultivated land owned
by the UFC among Indian peasants. The UFC
convinced the CIA and President Dwight
Eisenhower, and, through a major public relations
campaign, the US public, that Guatemala had
become a Soviet ‘satellite’, and that this was the first
stage in a Communist takeover of Central America.
It was aided in this effort by a number of key
contacts within the US Administration including
the US Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles (a
determined anti-Communist whose law firm had
represented United Fruit), his brother Allen Dulles
(the director of the CIA), and the brother of the
Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American
Affairs, John Moors Cabot, who had once been
president of United Fruit. As a result, Guzman's
government was overthrown by US-supported
Guatemalan army officers invading from Honduras.
As many as 140,000 are estimated to have died in
the ensuing civil war, and democratic development
in Guatemala is said to have been set back by 50
years.
The Chilean poet Pablo Neruda (1904-1973), a
committed activist in the fight for social justice and
equality in Latin America, wrote this poem in 1950
as part of his Canto General, to bring attention to
injustices brought upon the native populations of
Central and South America by US companies and
the US government, and the dictators they
supported.
La United Fruit Company
Pablo Neruda
From Canto general, 1950
Cuando sonó la trompeta, estuvo
todo preparado en la tierra,
y ٛ ehová repartió el mundo
a Coca-Cola Inc., Anaconda,
Ford Motors, y otras entidades:
la Compañía Frutera Inc.
Se reservó lo más jugoso,
la costa central de mi tierra,
la dulce cintura de América.
Bautizó de nuevo sus tierras
como “Repúblicas Bananas,”
y sobre los muertos dormidos,
sobre los héroes inquietos
que conquistaron la grandeza,
la libertad y las banderas,
estableció la ópera bufa:
enajenó los albedríos
regaló coronas de César,
desenvainó la envidia, atrajo
la dictadora de las moscas,
moscas Trujillos, moscas Tachos,
moscas Carías, moscas Martínez,
moscas Ubico, moscas húmedas
de sangre humilde y mermelada,
moscas borrachas que zumban
sobre las tumbas populares,
moscas de circo, sabias moscas
entendidas en tiranía.
Entre las moscas sanguinarias
la Frutera desembarca,
arrasando el café y las frutas,
en sus barcos que deslizaron
como bandejas el tesoro
de nuestras tierras sumergidas.
Mientras tanto, por los abismos
azucarados de los puertos,
caían indios sepultados
en el vapor de la mañana:
un cuerpo rueda, una cosa
sin nombre, un número caído,
un racimo de fruta muerta
derramada en el pudridero.

15
When the trumpet sounded
everything was prepared on earth,
and Jehovah gave the world
to Coca-Cola Inc., Anaconda,
Ford Motors, and other corporations.
The United Fruit Company
reserved for itself the most juicy
piece, the central coast of my world,
the delicate waist of America.
It rebaptized these countries
Banana Republics,
and over the sleeping dead,
over the unquiet heroes
who won greatness,
liberty, and banners,
it established an opera buffa:
it abolished free will,
gave out imperial crowns,
encouraged envy, attracted
the dictatorship of flies:
Trujillo flies, Tachos flies
Carias flies, Martinez flies,
Ubico flies, flies sticky with
submissive blood and marmalade,
drunken flies that buzz over
the tombs of the people,
circus flies, wise flies
expert at tyranny.
With the bloodthirsty flies
came the Fruit Company,
amassed coffee and fruit
in ships which put to sea like
overloaded trays with the treasures
from our sunken lands.
Meanwhile the Indians fall
into the sugared depths of the
harbors and are buried in the
morning mists;
a corpse rolls, a thing without
name, a discarded number,
a bunch of rotten fruit
thrown on the garbage heap.
ON A MUCH LIGHTER
NOTE…
My Dad And University
Keith Addenbrooke
MA student in Globalisation and Development,
University of Warwick
Keith Addenbrooke is the most local student on
this year’s Globalisation and Development
programme – his home is just ten minutes walk
away (not far past Cannon Park Shopping Centre).
Keith has three children: Stephanie is 9, Rebekah is
8 and baby Hannah was born on the first day of
term, Sept 27th!
We invited Keith’s kids to comment on the
Globalisation and Development programme and
the effect on family life of Dad going back to
school!
STEPHANIE’S REPORT
I think that Dad is learning about helping poorer
countries than England and helping the
environment. It is very important to realise that we
are very lucky to have so much stuff, as some
people don’t have a home at all. I also think that the
richer countries should give some money to help
those in need.
The environment is also important to us, as we
need the environment to live. Children that live
quite near to school should walk instead of going in
the car. Cannon Park School have invented a
system called “Park and Stride” where they can
leave their cars at Tesco car park and then walk
with their friends following some footprints to
school. The air is damaged as more people are
making short journeys by car. This causes pollution.
Recycling is also another important part of looking
after the environment, as people just throw away
things that can be recycled and made into new
things. Things you can recycle include:
newspapers/magazines, bottles and cans, shoes,
books, spectacles and stamps.
People chopping down trees make paper but could
ruin our life as trees give out oxygen so we can
breathe. They should always plant new trees to
replace the old trees.
Dad going to university does affect a few afterschool clubs that we have. So Mum has to take
Hannah to school and collect us, but I think that
Dad should enjoy going to university anyway.
REBEKAH’S REPORT
I think that Dad’s subject is quite a good one
because you can learn what is happening in
different parts of the world. You can find it
interesting to discover different things and we can
find out about people who are suffering. We can
help them by donating things to charity so people
can buy the stuff and the money will go towards
helping the suffering people. You should give
generously to poor people, so if you’re told to give
some money to poor people don’t just give one
penny because that will probably not do much to
help others. As you may know, BBC Children in
Need was a few days ago. If you watched it then
16
you will know about poorly and unlucky children
that may not have interesting things so be grateful
for what you have got and do not ask for more.
On bonfire night people set off fireworks which
doesn’t help the local environment and causes
pollution which is not good for the air. It also helps
the local environment if you put litter in the bin and
not be a litterbug.
I hope that you give generously, help the
environment and care for others. I hope that you
have learnt a lot about what Stephanie and I have
said and hopefully you think the same.
HANNAH’S REPORT
It’s great to be alive…!
The Team
JUSTINE COULTER
(WGDS President)
FABIANA ILLESCAS TALLEDO
(Editor)
MATHEW DOIDGE
(Co-Editor and Technical Production)
VULINDLELA NDLOVU
(Co-Editor)
Want to Contribute?
Please e-mail queries and submissions to:
FABIANA ILLESCAS TALLEDO
F.Illescas-Talledo@Warwick.ac.uk
Vu’s Rant
Vulindlela Ndlovu
MA student in Globalisation and Development,
University of Warwick
In which the intrepid Vu gets a little
something off his chest.
Everyday as I walk to the Learning Grid I
marvel at the beautiful waterworks that
have been built along the path: the
glistening water flowing down towards
central campus (it even disappears under
the path at one point and reappears on the
other side!): the speed at which the
surrounding trees have been planted and
grown; and; how quickly the muddy
surface has been transformed into a neat carpet of
green grass. I have often thought to myself that,
however many thousands of pounds the university
has spent landscaping this section of campus, it
must be worth it.
Walking past this beautiful part of campus surely
puts me in a better frame of mind to study –
especially after spending tens of pounds
photocopying hundreds of pages of the few books I
could find at the library. Competing for books and
resources at a university library with the 26 other
people from your program is harder and more
expensive than one might expect. It is a rarity to get
your hands on the book you desire before one of
the other 25 do, yet the satisfaction is tempered by
the 6p-per-page price tag that is yoked to your
discovery (where else in the world does
photocopying cost students 6p per page?!?).
Apparently the library would love to buy more
books, but just don’t have the funds! Our
department would also love to order more books,
but have used up their ‘book’ budget for this
financial year! The response from the University is
reportedly that we now have unlimited electronic
resources. But what proportion of recently
published books is now available electronically? In
fact how many of the University’s staff have their
books published electronically? It is a truly pathetic
excuse. How can a University, which is to be judged
on the quality of its research, be so underresourced? How can a library, the very foundation
of the University system, be so woefully
inadequate? Warwick University should consider
where its priorities lie – is this an institution of
higher education, or a public park? Still, perhaps
those beautiful waterworks will distract me as I
trudge back from the library, empty-handed.
17