Saturday, October 20, 2007

An Inconvenient Award

October 12th, 2007 – Former United- States vice- president Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Prize for peace along with the Intergov- ernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These two have won the award "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change". I would have written about something else yet I am appalled by the lack of criticism such an action has attracted.

The Nobel Peace Prize has always been awarded to an organisation or a person that has advanced, developed or protected what we call ‘peace’. Mr. Gore, apart from winning 2 Oscars for a methodologically questionable documentary, has been touring the world to inform and promote his environmentalist views and the studies he decides to use. I can respect his work since he believes in a cause and works very hard towards imposing his personal beliefs. I thus criticise the Norwegian parliament for awarding a prize for peace to people who talk about slowly melting glaciers and dying penguins. What’s next? Will we give the next ones to great recyclers, amazing scientologists, compelling evolutionists or astounding janitors? I understand that the word peace is malleable but this pushes the limits, especially considering to whom the same prize has been awarded in the past.

Alfred Nobel died in 1896, 5 years before the first prizes were awarded. A rich industrialist and inventor of dynamite, Nobel left a will stating that the peace prize should be given ‘to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses", and it has in the past…mostly.

Amongst the winners have been: Jean-Henri Dunant for the foundation of the Red Cross (1901), American President Woodrow Wilson for his participation and promotion of the of the League of Nations (1919), Cordell Hull for his responsibility in the creation of the United Nations (1945), George Catlett Marshall for his ‘Marshall Plan’ (an economic reconstruction plan for a war torn Europe) (1953), Canadian Prime Minister Lester Bowles Pearson for his creation of the Blue Helmet soldier force of the UN (1957), Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. for his pioneering of the non-violent civil rights movement of African-Americans (1964), Desmond Tutu for his strong and non-violent opposition to South-African apartheid (1984), Mikhail Gorbachev for his democratic policies within the Soviet Union and for his efforts of peace towards the West (1990) and Shirin Ebadi for her work for the liberation of women in Iran (2002). This illustrious list (and voluminous sentence) clearly depicts a prize that is quite secondary to the amazing legacy of these people’s work for peace in our time. Mr. Gore’s work…is not so much.

Very little criticism has been received by this topic since environmentalism is this decade’s ‘hot topic’. We sort of ran out of human issues in mainstream politics and in Hollywood (such as war in the 1910s-1950s civil rights in the 1950s-1960s, feminism in the 1970s-1980s, homosexual rights in the 1990s and 2000s) so we had to find something new to feel guilty about. With a lot of research, I was able to fin this quote by a spokesperson for the president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus: ‘He (Klaus) is somewhat surprised that Al Gore got the Peace Prize, because the relation between his activities and world peace is unclear and indistinct. It rather seems that Gore's questioning of the basic foundation stones of the current civilisation does not contribute to peace much.’ (BBC New Service). I am happy to see that I am not the only one that thinks it IS quite a leap to award our foremost humanitarian prize to an environmentalist. Furthermore, I think we need more reaction about this prize from Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe, regions without the stability and free time that we seem to have. Imagine being the President of Sudan, where a genocidal war has raged for years and where hundreds of diplomats have tried to negotiate peace and where the Red Cross risks their lives every day and where UN peace forces are being shot at despite their neutrality, and then imagine being told that Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for telling the world that our SUVs will make the oceans rise… It would be enough for you to laugh or cry, whilst sitting in a bunker fearing for your life.


All in all, I congratulate Mr. Gore and the IPCC for their win and for the 1.5 million dollars that came with it (in all fairness, Gore donated his half to charity). I am just terribly disappointed that Nobel’s brainchild was used as an apparent political manoeuvre to promote certain ideas. I hear that next year’s nominees will include a man that says rocks have feelings, another who bombs zoos to liberate the animals and another that proved that masturbation makes Jesus cry. As always, I exaggerate and I know the Nobel Peace Prize was a passing piece of news that no one will remember in a week. Mr. Gore’s parade was too sunny; I just had to rain on it.


(Pictured: Alfred Nobel spinning in his grave - Al Gore in his thinner days)


End.

Sunday, October 14, 2007

A faraway holocaust

October 11th, 2007 – The United States Senate has passed a bill recognizing the Armenian genocide of 1915-1917. The result was 27 supporting votes against 21 opposed; it barely was approved despite the appeals of secretary of state Condoleezza Rice (yes, I had to check the spelling) and President George W. Bush himself. The aforementioned politicians implored the senators to vote against the bill stating that: ‘Its passage would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in NATO and in the global war on terror’ (BBC News Service). They are of course referring to the aggressor in this alleged genocide: Turkey.

So if I understand correctly, the Head of State of the, supposedly, most democratic country on earth tried to interfere in the United States’ bicameral system. For those of you who slept through your political science classes (myself included, I had to read up on it later), the US bicameral system involves one gouverning body or ‘house’ whom proposes legislation, another house whom passes legislation and the presidency which has no part in either. Mr. Bush’s and Mrs. Rice’s involvement was actually circumventing their national constitution by their attempted influencing of the democratic process, and for purely political and economic reasons. Our globalized economy and geopolitical environment undoubtedly clashes with the basic principles of the democratic/capitalist system but the president’s lack of tact and subtlety is appalling. Even if Turkey has been a crucial ally in the twentieth century, and with reason, the recognition of any genocide must prevail over all practical reasons; we are not going to deny the Holocaust simply to keep Germany happy and to keep the steady course of Volkswagens and Heineken flowing.

Turkey was, and still is, crucial to any western alliance by its geographic location. By controlling the territory around both the Bosporus and Dardanelle straits, they effectively control all movement between the Mediterranean and Black seas; and thus on every naval enterprise made by our Russian friend/neighbour/nemesis. The cold war is over yet ‘keeping a close eye’ on our neighbours has not fallen out of fashion. Furthermore, this ‘war on terror’ that our British and American partners love painting the media with, has important military installations in Turkey; so it’s usefulness to the West is far from outlived.

I think it is important to establish the international reasons why the President wanted to halt the bill but he forgets that he is of the lowest importance in his country. He executes the orders of the Senate and House of Representatives and they, in turn, take their orders from the citizens (or at least this is how it should work). To his credit, Mr. Bush did correctly forebode the Turkish reaction; President Abdullah Gul responded to the action with these weighted and not at all overdramatic words of wisdom: ‘This unacceptable decision of the committee, like similar ones in the past, is not regarded by the Turkish people as valid or of any value’ (BBC News Service). This begs the question: how can a matter be unacceptable and of no value at the same time? As I mentioned earlier, this Armenian genocide is a very sensitive matter that Turkey rejects unilaterally, not surprising as they were the aggressors.

To provide some context about a little known country, Armenia is a small country of the ex U.S.S.R. that gained independence in the 1991 break-up. It is landlocked and is quite poor in natural resources. Its economy is heavily based in agriculture as well as primary industry and has been bullied by American, Russian and even Chinese powers who have been trying to establish their sphere of influence onto another peripheral region of the Middle East. During the First World War, Armenia was invaded by the Ottoman Empire, an Islamic establishment whom sided with Germany and subsequently lost their Empire along with the war. The invasion resulted in the deaths of approximately 1.5 million Armenians. Considering that today, their population is 3.2 million; the sheer percentage of their nationality that perished constitutes genocide, regardless of intent and organisation. The thing is, the Ottomans failed to take over the entire Caucasus region in the war and blamed the Russian-siding Armenians; the subsequent intent to punish adds the elusive element of motive to the genocide verdict reached that some (22) countries have assigned to Turkey.

All in all, whether or not anyone recognises the semantic assignation we have given this event, something very bad happened to these people and if we can ease their search for closure, neither President Bush nor President Gul can prevent our collective effort to do so. Finally, It means nothing but the ‘end is coming ’ Blog, representing exactly 1 person, officially recognizes the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1917.
(Pictured: A gravesite of Armenian genocide victims - A shifty looking Abdullah Gul, President of Turkey)

End.




Wednesday, October 3, 2007

Soft Cells

October 1st 2007 – The Canadian ‘tainted blood scandal’ ended with the acquittal of four Canadian doctors and of an American drug company. They had been charged with criminal negligence that led to the infection of at least 20,000 patients with the HIV and hepatitis C viruses. The original accusations were brought against the doctors in 1985 and a cool 22 years later, the victims are still sick, the doctors and the drug company cannot clean their blemished record and the Canadian judicial system is missing a few million dollars.

I don’t know how to begin to criticise a 22 year trial but as we will see later, it seems to be the standard length in this type of case. That’s right; there have been so many that a trend can be established. Furthermore, I question the initial accusation that these doctors are to blame if their parent company does not have a 100% efficient screening method for the gallons of blood that are donated every week. Nothing is 100%: condoms are 96% effective, a vegetable oil powered car still emits damaging fumes, diet sprite still contains high levels of sodium, Gandhi was still unbelievably racist towards the black populations of South Africa and a day is always slightly less than exactly 24 hours, requiring intermittent leap seconds. The victims have been infected with horrible diseases but without them being able to prove that the screening process was not carried out because the doctors went to lunch early, the physicians did their job and the tragedy happened anyway. It happens all over the world, is quite frequent and the verdict is almost always positive for the accused.

To give a first example, in 2003, 30 French officials and health workers were acquitted of very much the same charges. In this case, thousands of people were infected with the HIV virus in 1985 yet the courts could not prove that there was ‘intent to cause death’. Among the indicted were the former prime minister, Laurent Fabius and the social affairs minister, Edmond HervĂ©. When the verdict was announced, it caused a massive outrage amongst the victims that had survived the 18 years of the trial. Some jurors were even harassed with shouts of ‘Shame on you, you haven't even read the file... We will remember your names’ (BBC News Service, 2003). Just like the Canadian case, the doctors cannot be accused of a terrible flaw of the blood transmission system, or can they?

As a final example, I cite the tainted blood scandal that implicated 7 Bulgarian health workers in 1991. They were accused of voluntarily giving AIDS blood to 428 children in a Libyan hospital. The trial still took over 12 years and in 2004, 6 of them were condemned to death by hanging. Without wanting to generalise, Libya is not the most liberal, impartial and fair country on earth so the accusation and the investigation seem completely fraudulent to me. The medics confessed under torture to their accusations and no amount of appeals could save them. They say justice is blind but she sure likes jewellery. In an ingenious publicity stunt, the new French President in 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy negotiated the release of the prisoners by paying a massive donation to Libya’s AIDS children fund (secretly called the PPF or ‘Presidential Party Fund). Libya was not so happy a few days later when France flew the prisoner back to their native Bulgaria; where they were immediately pardoned and let free by the Bulgarian Prime Minister. They get to live with their nightmarish memories of Libyan prisons, among other things.


They, as well as the French and Canadian officials and medics must live with the memory of giving tainted blood to hopeful patients and indirectly causing widespread death and suffering. They didn’t do it on purpose but it did happen and they failed to prevent it. As much as I am happy to see that they were all acquitted, I believe that the axiom ‘be careful, not sorry’ applies in this situation.

(Pictured: Some blood being weighed - a stylised HIV virus)

End.