The noughties. The decade that was primed for glory, technological advancement, an end to world hunger, an end to climate change and the beginning of peace. It was a chance to start anew, reconcile the world and commence a fresh new age of tolerance and prosperity. Is it me or did none of that, bar technological advancement, happen? When reviewing the last decade I placed it upon myself to play a little word association game. That is, to stay the first words that came into my head when I said ‘the noughties.’ Here is but a mere taster of some of the words I chanced upon: war, failure, climate change, terrorism, fear, shock. Am I too bleak in my review? Granted, there were glimpses of hope like the end of George Bush’s grasp as leader of the world. Replaced by the first African-American as President, Barack Obama’s ideals are commendable but only time will tell whether or not they come to fruition. Instead, let me list some of the disappointing features of our ageing decade. Who can forget the acts of terrorism in America on 9/11 or London’s own 7/7 attacks? What about the horrific siege on a Russian school in Beslan where 186 children were brutally murdered? Natural disasters were also rife. Remember the Boxing Day tsunami in South East Asia where around 300,000 people lost their lives? Or how about Hurricane Katrina savaging the southern states of America, proving that Nature discriminates not between developing and developed nations? The fall and subsequent execution of Saddam Hussein came at a cost of countless lives of innocent Iraqis, who are to this day still paying for the decision of a few to start an illegal war. Though evil men fell, good men also passed away. Pope John Paul II, a proponent of peace and charity, was lost.
Recently, of course, we have suffered a global financial meltdown, from which we are only now beginning to recover. Freakish weather and rising sea levels still continue to be ignored as Mother Nature vents her fury at our negligence and ignorance. So what are we to take from this decade? Caution. I believe the last decade has been a warning to mankind. It has shown us what will happen if we continue to abuse the Earth; continue to fuel our greed and hatred and continue to neglect human rights crises home and abroad. Do we really want to live in a constant state of threat from terrorism or radical climate change or financial catastrophe? Humankind should learn from its mistakes and stop immediately and pro-actively from making them again in the upcoming years. If we continue in the same vein of form the effects could be potentially worse. Who knows; perhaps those Mayans were onto something. Having said that, at this rate, it will be a bit of a struggle to even reach 2012!
Sadir Zayadine
ON TERRORISM
Following the devastating attacks in America on September 11th 2001, the world suddenly became aware of a ‘new’ threat of terrorism. This terrorism, we were told, would hunt us down in our own homes, our own cities, our own work places. These attacks would hit anyone, regardless of your nationality, religion, political views. It did not matter whether you were a civilian or a military combatant. We were warned to keep our eyes peeled, to trust no one and to prepare for the fight against terror.
Plans were subsequently made for the invasion of those nations that were deemed to be most dangerous, Afghanistan and Iraq. Around the world, people became obsessed with the link between terrorism and ‘Islamist extremism’; an idea which was fuelled not only by those in power but , more crucially, the media.
It is no wonder that the Western world became more alert after the 9/11 attacks. The utter devastation and enormous casualties in just a few hours were unlike anything America had experienced; furthermore it was an attack on domestic soil. The reaction of the population was every bit justified: the fear, the panic, and the desire for a culprit to be found and brought to justice. The government response however, was not.
Perhaps the principle job of a government is to protect its people through fair representation and information. What happened after 9/11, not only in America but also other Western states, was the exacerbation of the situation, in terms of where the threat came from and what the extent of that threat was. Undeniably the attacks created the feeling that threat of further attacks was foreseeable. People felt they were in danger, but the government did not serve to counter these fears or threats, or deal with the hysteria that ensued.
There is not much we can do to alter the actions of previous governments; however, we must truly understand the significance of this new terrorism and place it into perspective.
The act of terrorism in itself is not a new singularity. Terrorism can be traced back to the Roman age and perhaps even before. The experience of la Terreur during the French Revolution is still thought of as one of the worst periods of terrorism in Europe. What the media and certain governments effectively did throughout the early 2000s was create a new conception of terrorism.
At the same time, we must not forget the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York in 1993; the Oklahoma bombings in 1995, or the IRA attacks throughout the 1970s.
Terrorism is something that we should fear and try to eradicate. The 7/7 attacks in London shook Britain to the core and intensified fears propagated after 9/11. Nevertheless we must seek to understand the threat properly instead of proclaiming a ‘global war on terror’. Not only does this imply that the whole world is faced with an imminent threat from these organisations but it makes it seem like this fight will never end, especially considering the international situation.
I refer of course to the recent decision to increase troops in Afghanistan that has been met with proclamations of intensity from the Taliban. Terrorist attacks are fuelled by panic and fear. Essentially, these are the main goals of terrorist organisations: to entice fear, to coerce, to intimidate. Fighting fire with fire can aggravate the situation further by creating new perceived grievances or reinforcing old ones, leading others to join the side of insurgents. Governments should be working to educate the public on the actual situation, instead of creating more fear and panic that in this century has invariably led to an increase in xenophobia and racism. I need only refer to the recent decision in Switzerland to ban minarets to highlight this point.
Terrorism is not a new phenomenon; but in this past decade it has occurred much closer to home. Instead of proclamations of the ‘new’ threat, we need to be aware of the real situation. Our government needs to try at least to be empathetic in order to tackle the root causes of these attacks. This could include attempts to create stronger ties with both central and local governments in order to open up dialogue and assess the true picture on the ground. Furthermore, questions of why these groups resort to terrorism need to be seriously assessed. Governments must think of alternative institutions and means that can be provided to civilians in order to address their concerns. Education, as well as the legitimacy of governance, is paramount.
My hope therefore for this new decade, is for governments to at least try and work together, as hard as it may seem, in order to create favourable conditions for negotiation but also to educate its populations in order to minimise the effects that the war on terror has had on our supposedly democratic communities.
Teresa Goncalves
ON GENERATION Y
Looking forward to 2010 can be quite daunting; given the range of political and economic challenges 2009 ushered in, it is difficult to predict what the coming year will bring with it. Invariably, what comes our way will be dealt with by the youth of today through our unique frame of reference and approach to global affairs. Generation Y, as we are known, will have to grapple with a complex set of political challenges. For the first time, it is possible to say that many of us are “global citizens”, with perspectives that go beyond our own backyards. With this comes a set of divergent opinions, experiences and predictions on what to do to solve the problems of tomorrow. What binds us together, however, is our mutual responsibility to adequately address the problems facing us in the future; many of which will be inherited by the generation above us, and predicated on misunderstandings and band-aid solutions.
The misrepresentations and misreading of the relationship between the Muslim world and the West, the challenges associated with climate change and carbon emissions, growing poverty rates, the ongoing spread of HIV/AIDS, and the political effects of an ageing world population exemplify a set of concerns the youth of today will have to address head on . Unlike the generations before us, many of the issues that face us cannot be solved merely through military might, and instead require, long lasting solutions, based on common understandings and correct policy. Most of our generation remain untouched by armed, interstate warfare; the carnage of World War I and II are distant lessons in history textbooks. As American and Coalition troops struggle to get a firm grip on the social and political intricacies in Afghanistan and Iraq, many of us are wary of the capability for boots on the ground to bring about everlasting solutions. Put simply – we need brain power.
Approaching global affairs intellectually, will require coordination, and mobilisation; something that to our generation, even those who are politically disinclined, is second nature. We are the generation of multitaskers, authors of Facebook updates, blogs and online journalism. Just as we have inherited a unique set of social and political challenges ahead, so too are we the keepers of a host of tools unlike anything seen before. At no other point in history has the process of exchanging ideas, information, and more importantly, counter-arguments, been so easy. With the advent of the internet, educational exchange programs, blogging, texting, online newspapers and journals, podcasts, and commentary, our generation will find it is difficult to claim ignorance.
In the past, a lack of information and awareness has proven disastrous: the international neglect of the Rwandan genocide, the inability to reach out to the Muslim nations, late efforts to address climate change and ongoing issues of race and religious toleration in Europe and North America. These are all cases in which the absence of dialogue and information sharing has been critical in exacerbating and prolonging problems. We must learn from these mistakes. Some have managed to harness our generation’s approach to world affairs: online microcrediting services exemplify simple, policy-driven tools available globally, which succinctly addresses world poverty. Most notably of course, was Barack Obama’s ability to tap into the youth’s thirst for a returned emphasis on political dialogue in American foreign policy; many have accredited his connection with youth in his historic election victory.
The correct use of the tools in front of us will define our generation’s legacy in global affairs, it is up to us to realise the capabilities many of us take for granted. Often described as over-privileged, and lazy, our generation can show history what we are capable of, if we take a step back and realise our potential. At no other time in history has the prospect of finally putting to an end some of the issues that have lasted decades been so near.
Aisha Ansari
DOOMSDAY
The millennial enthusiasms of the Unarius Space Academy, founded upon on a pseudoscientific hodgepodge of past-life channeling, Chinese geneaology and fourth dimensional physics principles, predicted the arrival of our ‘space brothers’ to their El Cajon, California HQ in 2001. Arriving in a cavalcade of 33 flying saucers from different planets, the extraterrestials were to usher in the end of the world as we know it. They would introduce an international university and new technologies to save planet Earth from self-destruction. The banners were hung and the CDs were in the player, but their little green guests didn’t show.
According to prophetess Lori Adaile Toye of the I Am America Foundation, the Earth was supposed to undergo a series of sensational systemic natural disturbances from 1992 to 2009, at which point much of the world was to go the way of Atlantis. While we wait for evidence of water-based apocalypse, one can find updated world maps for sale on her website.
Sandra Smiley
ON NEW LABOUR AND IDEOLOGY
May 1997 saw Tony Blair stride into No. 10, his gait matching the optimism and hope encapsulated in the feverish flag waving and fresh spring air that came with that day. Blair, it was thought, was leading his party and even the country on a grand project of modernisation, creating a politics and a nation for the 21st Century. This venture was New Labour. Over 12 years later, with the faces of that movement worn and furrowed by events and the stresses they bring, what has become of our politics?
Blair saw his party as the realisation of an idea born at the LSE. His admiration for Anthony Giddens, the cerebral father of the Third Way, verged on a desire for doctrinaire implementation of our former director’s ideas. Retrospect shows us that ideology has in fact been the biggest victim of Blair and Brown’s project. Rather than becoming the ideology to rule all ideologies, transcending the clash between left and right, the Third Way has sucked ideas out of British politics altogether. This is evidenced by the nature of debate in the Westminster village today. In a year when events have challenged fundamental assumptions of the economic orthodoxy, the political community has been discredited as nepotistic, and numerous global problems persist without clear answers, it is staggering to contemplate the narrowness in the range of remedies proposed by mainstream politics. History tells us that crises such as these should lead to an exaggeration of differences in ideas, facing citizens with a choice as to who should govern. Extremist ideology is certainly unwelcome, but difference of some description and for the right reasons is the lifeblood of a liberal democracy.
New Labour is inculpated in this end to ideas for a number of reasons. Primarily, its own emptiness is to blame. We have now lived under a government without an ideology for nearly 13 years.
Perhaps we have simply forgotten what it looks like. Commitments such as the famous 1997 manifesto promise to be ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’ seduced us into thinking we were at a landmark moment, putting the dogma of left and right behind us and adopting a set of universal beneficial values and ideas. Such aphorisms are successful because they are so hard to disagree with. Who wouldn’t want to tackle crime as well as its causes or accept responsibility with their newfound rights? Sadly, these visions never became a reality. The electorate unconsciously swapped honesty as to the difficult choices intrinsic in making policy and effecting change, for a politics in which presentation rules supreme. Tragically, government in this way inescapably results in a race to the bottom. Opposition of substance is awkward when one has nothing concrete to push against.
Into the vacuum of ideas pours techniques of style and packaging. It is deeply troubling that some of the most employed tools of policy formulation and government emulate the operations of the advertising agency. Does it seem likely that the answers to how best to flog a packet of crisps and what the best way to regulate immigration is lie in the same processes? With this phenomenon, scrutiny falls down by the wayside. Criticism of politicians centres on pointing out gaps in their polished presentation rather than questioning values or policy proposals. The 2010 election will be a crossroads for our society where important questions beg important answers. Sadly, and largely thanks to New Labour, May will undoubtedly be a triumph of form over substance. Ideology, R.I.P.
Olly Wiseman
NAYSAY
Hitherto the domain of suicide cults, astral-plane sky pilots and homicidal right-wing survivalists, millennial mysticism went mainstream with the Y2K bug, cultivating popular consternation about the consequences of ‘century date change’. Many computer programs were fashioned to store years with only two digits: for example, 1980 would be stored as 80. Such systems were expected to crash and cause crucial infrastructure to fail. The year 2000 was presaged by sensational political rhetoric and an alarmist media to be anything from ‘the electronic equivalent of El Nino’ to a crisis of epic proportions.
Some have interpreted the writings of the 16th century seer Nostradamus as predicting a series of at least three antichrists. The first two, Hitler and Napoleon, were apparently foretold by the prophet- but the third has yet to debut. The name ‘Mabus’ has been anagrammatically linked with ‘Obama’, ‘Saddam’, ‘Osama’ and, slightly more credibly, current US Secretary of the Navy, Roy Mabus.
Sandra Smiley
Related posts:
Pingback: BY PUBLICATION « My CPU Runneth Over