Gandhi was successful for a short time. Peaceful means without a strong army to back it up is a danger. Within about 150 years the Islamic forces conquered the whole of Arabia, North Africa, Turkey, all the way down to India.

The system of Islam, its ldeology, mosques, madrassahs and violent killing of non-Muslims are the greatest threat to world peace. With oil- money from the rich Muslim states, they are trying to spread their violent ideology all over the world.

We can follow the peaceful means of Gandhi in that we don't buy from any Muslim shops, eat their food, and having nothing to do with Islamic businesses and companies. The mistake Gandhi made was to treat Muslim as brothers and were 'eaten up' by them as can be seen in the riots between followers of Islam and non-Muslims.

Gandhi was only successful because he was opposing the British. If he had been opposing Adolf Hitler, Genghis Khan or Mohammed, I think the outcome would have been quite different.

As far as I know, Gandhi had little to say about the major problem of today - which is not Global Warming, which is only a symptom, but overpopulation. I cannot see how his approach would have any effect in this case.

I agree with most of the sentiments in this article.

Gandhi provided the symbolic link to allow, as the Author states, the raising of "the moral conscience of the British people". The "Truth" of the system was revealed. The difference in the early 21st century is that the colonisation achieved by the new capitalist empires entices a local population to covet "our" values and lifestyle through marketing and advertising, creating needs and wants that attempt to transform locals and encourage the embrace of, some would argue, the worst aspects of our system. The truth these days, is harder to get at.

In Gandhi's time the marketing and advertising industries were in comparative infancy to today. I wasn't around then but I would guess the notion of economic rationalism was unheard of. The point is, ideas about capitalism (reinforced as the system that won the cold war), economic rationalism and such are so ingrained in our modern western consciousness that many people believe following these principles IS the way forward.

A "Gandhi-esque" attempt to raise our consciousness now may meet a more distainful reaction at home, encouraged by industry and interest groups, indeed entire consumer economies, that depend on this system for their survival.

Unfortunately, given the underwhelming reactions to alternative ideas or critiques of the current system and the perceived overall superiority of it (by governments and disinterested populations), negative environmental consequences look like the main possible catalyst for change. Wars and terrorist attacks (rightly or wrongly) can be explained by other means than blaming our way of life - perversly, defending selected components of our "way of life" were used as justification for war only recently.

It may well be that we are only able to change direction when some environmental catastrophe driven by our system affects us so directly that we are finally shaken from these beliefs and are forced to reassess our values and seriously contemplate alternatives to the unfettered free markets of global neo-capitalism that are currently promoted so heavily.

The West needs Jesus Christ.
The West needs a return, for many many folks, to their christian roots.
A return to Gods Word and christian fellowship.
Thats what will save the West.
Lots of solid prayer against terrorism, inflation, collapsing governments and the great growth of asian armies.

What a nice article. I am sure everyone feels nicer for reading it and approving its nice sentiments.

Nice people will understand.

NEXT!

Hmm

I agree with much of the first half of this article, in particular about the value and surprising efficacy of non-violence in highlighting and overcoming oppression and moral blindness. The moral force of non-violent protest was a key factor in the defeat of imperialism in India, racial segregation in the USA, apartheid in South Africa, military despotism in Chile, the Marcos regime in the Philippines, and Marxist regimes in the former Soviet Union and its empire. In contrast, utopian political revolutions grounded in violence often prove short lived or produce governments worse, or little better than, the ones they replace – in Vietnam, Russia, China, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Vietnam, Albania etc

But the second half degenerates into an anti-capitalist rant that is long on rhetoric and devoid of facts. “The economic system that dominates the globe in the interests of a wealthy minority” with “leaders in the pockets of corporate giants” has in fact raised more people from abject poverty than any other economic system in history.

Such ideological stereotyping is hardly like to inspire the thoughtful self-criticism which the article calls on the west and its leaders to employ.

Ghandi’s India, which for decades languished in abject poverty and periodic famine, is today emerging as a global economic powerhouse thanks to economic reforms that are integrating it into the global economic system. Millions are emerging from poverty as a result.

Much though I admire him, Gandhi was not perfect. One of his political weaknesses was his anti-modernism and romanticising and glorification of poverty and the peasant society, which arguably contributed to the policies of India’s post-war governments that were so effective in keeping Indians poor for so long. As Christopher Hitchens says: “millions of people would have starved to death if [Gandhi’s] advice had been followed”.

If....the British held doctrinal views about manifest destiny and the divine right of the Brits to rule others.... and could back this up with Christian scriptures...(which they cannot) then no amount of Ghandis would have made a scrap of difference.. they would just have killed as many as they needed to in order to quell 'infidels' who were opposing their rule.

"But the second half degenerates into an anti-capitalist rant that is long on rhetoric and devoid of facts."

Well here's some facts Rhian and no rants here. These hard facts reveal the appalling inequality between the corporate giants and those who remain in abject poverty despite corporate giants helping themselves to poor people's resources and plundering and polluting their environment.

http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2951

Hmmm.....nothing there to convince me that people have been raised from abject poverty.

http://www.foe.org.au/resources/chain-reaction/chain-reaction-editions/chain-reaction-100/famous-moments-in-foe-history-exposing-the-uranium-cartel-in-1976

More cover-ups by the corporate giants and our esteemed politicians.

http://www.terradaily.com/2007/071009154249.xytavr0w.html

That World Bank mob should be called to account eh?

http://s3.amazonaws.com/corpwatch.org/downloads/Barrick_final_sml.pdf

Ah gawd....it's getting worse!

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:zC-b6pq3XP0J:sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx%3Fid%3D259409+underground+toxic+plume+botany+bay+2006&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=au&lr=lang_en

OMG - Botany Bay? That's Australia isn't it? and that's hexachlorobenzene which has been languishing and leaking into our eco systems for 20 years and the same mob polluting the magnificent Sydney Harbour - free of charge and all!

http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKSYD23097020071105?sp=true

And all this happening in the land of the "free!"

"And with the planet edging towards environmental catastrophe, surely it is time to reassess the utter madness of our consumer culture."

I'm with you Brad Pedersen. Unfortunately those who are most influential and adept at capturing our weak and unethical Masters have excluded the environment from their grand plans for continued economic expansion. And the feckless flock will be happy in their work!

Bravo on an excellent article. Gandhi has always been one of my heroes. Like Jesus Christ, he offered almost perfect solutions for an almost perfect world...

DICKIE.....

just out of curiosity...

a) what 'system' do you suggest as an alternative?
b) do you have faith in human nature that said 'system' will instantly solve the problems you mention, and that once 'they' have power they will remain pure and incorrupt ?
c) If you do have a 'system' in mind, can you point to any example in history where it has been implemented, and worked, and succeeded?

d) Do you honestly think there is any system, which can survive the determined attacks of its detractors if they are fixated on wrecking it, aside from mass killings on a scale of Cambodia under Pol Pot?

Why would 'idealistic revolutionaries' be any less prone to the corrupting temptations of power than the current batch..... don't we all share the same nature ?

As an alternative, I'm with Gibo...

PROBLEM:
Our problem is not the 'system'...its the people.

SOLUTION:

Repentance from sin, and faith in Christ Jesus the Messiah of God.

Dare I say 'its new people' who change societies rather than new systems? Today's unrepentant corporate fat cats, could be tomorrows generous humanitarians..

dickie

90% of problems facing poor countries lies with corrupt governments and 10% are caused by multi-national corporations. Many countries that gained independence from their colonial masters are today in a poorer state than before. Millions of $$$$ given as aid to poor countries usually end up in the pockets of some government official.

More must be done to undo globalisation and concentrate on sustained development. In the long run, protectionism serves the world better than free-trade; no global warming, less indiscriminate exploitation of natural resources, etc.

The first step is to vote for a political party that espouses protectionism over free trade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionist_Party

Boazy and Philip Tang

The questions you raise are thought-provoking and pose a challenge for me since no doubt you are aware, I am but a simple environmentalist.

You see, I seem to have this fixation on "thinking globally but acting locally" and perhaps I remain too "parochial" to engage in world politics.

The links I've provided relate to the actions of Australian based corporations and their dishonourable behaviour, here and overseas.

These are often corporations revered by our governments - corporations which contribute handsomely to the economic expansion and employment of our people but at what cost to our depleting resources, our eco systems, our community health and the transboundary impact on the planet's environment.

Successful corporations in this nation engage in the reckless abandonment of environmental principles, with flagrant disregard for the conditions of the EPA Acts and continue to dictate to successive state and federal industry aligned governments.

"90% of problems facing poor countries lies with corrupt governments and 10% are caused by multi-national corporations.

I do agree to a large extent Philip Tang, however just one multi-national corporation, paying graft to corrupt officials in a poorer country, can cause irreparable environmental damage to that nation.

These companies are plundering the resources of others and leaving the locals with a big mess, having contaminated their rivers. their lands and their health.

I thoroughly endorse the recommendation of an overseas Australian Mining Ombudsman - an independent watchdog where statutes are implemented in our legislation to prevent Australian based companies destroying the eco systems of poorer countries.

"Repentance from sin, and faith in Christ Jesus the Messiah of God."

Boazy, I know you mean well, however, some of the biggest environmental vandals do have faith in Christ Jesus but appear bereft of conscience when it comes to making a fast buck. Need one look further than Mr Howard et al and his disgraceful non-performance on mitigating pollution?

I and many others are disillusioned with the ethics-free operations of free trade, globalisation and the moral pygmies it attracts.

Yes Philip Tang...... I believe your recommendations may indeed have merit!

Beautiful article however just to be honest after all that has gone on today, I just need to say "RESPONSIBILITY" has nothing to do with BEING SAVED. It is about "self-government" coming from each of us, and that appears to be the human problem.

The way we relate to eachother in Australia needs the greatest work.

http://www.miacat.com/
.

The protectionist vs free trade is an interesting debate.

Quite probably, the most important debate that exists in the world, as the effects flow into every other aspect of life, from conflict to the environment.

I'm somewhat torn. A pure free market system is better than a protectionist one that is manipulated for the benefit of a commercial oligarchy.

As an example, take the fanjul family in the US - quite probably, the largest beneficiary of welfare in the US with a stranglehold on sugar exports.

I support a minor degree of agricultural protectionism in Australia, but that's largely just because our competitors are doing it to a higher extent - actually, I'd like to see us peg our subsidies to a fraction rate of our prime competitors in an effort to encourage them to ditch their tariffs, while keeping ours lean and mean but competitive.

I can't ignore the fact however, that I'd prefer to see the subsidies scrapped.
On a global level, this would allow poor nations to achieve a real growth in exports. Their comparatively low labor costs would give them a real edge and provide an opportunity to lift them out of poverty.

Of course, even this isn't a panacea. The chief problem many third world nations have, is that it's impossible to create a viable business because a stable market doesn't exist.

To lift people out of poverty: how can you create a functioning business or even own land, when a coup or armed rebellion means that your achievements may be worthless? When red tape prevents a business from starting?

And make no mistake, with protectionism comes red tape and the associated handicap on small operators.

BUT!

There can be no denying that the result of capitalism is the aggregation of money and power into large businesses, which left unrestrained, will inevitably lead to cartels, duopolies and monopolies. These never function in the best interests of people or the planet.
Monopolies and cartels are the capitalist X factor that free market libertarians like to sidestep. Protectionism is necessary here.

Hi Dickie

thanx for your mellow response mate.
I was just curious.. your post sounded like you have a bit of a 'red' tinge :) but being an environmentalist.. it just means you are a sincere person who is rightly outraged over human greed etc and short sighted exploitation of the earths resources.. I totally agee with you, but my solution still stands.

You described the problem very well. I just don't see any other answer than for people to get their hearts rightly connected to our Maker and then realize that we have 'stewardship' of His world as a divinely given responsibility and duty.

I know it might sound kinda 'out there' to mention God in this context, but I'm looking around.. and round.. and round.. and I just don't see anything except many peoples many versions of fuzzy thinking...and they are all different, no single one having any more authority than another.

Which leads us to 'what next' ? I guess one might suggest 'science' will show us the way ahead. But sadly.. science, like the Slavery abolitionists, faces the problem 'repentance' actually addresses.. i.e. greed and human nature.

No matter which way one slices the cake..its still made of chocolate.

GANDHI.. another lesson.

1/ You can get rid of a 'restraining' Colonial power by non violent means.
2/ Once you have thrown off the leash of The Colonial master, you are free to kill uncountable thousands, even millions, as you then try to work out who is boss now.

3/ The racist and religous elements kept in check by the British, were then let out and given free reign... and ohhhhh how the Bengali's suffers from that.

So.....non violence may seem a good solution.. but only when the other side respects your views.. which Pakistan did not.

4/ Lesson 4= "Learn from the bigger historical picture, not just one small warm fuzzy parenthesis".

The only chaps that benefit from globalisation seems to be corrupt government officials, big multi-national corporations and 0.0005% of the people of China.

If we undo globalisation and regulate the current world monetary system to avoid currency speculation, most of the economic woes facing the world would go away. Less consumer goods produced means less natural resources needed, less pollution, etc.

Currently, about 72% of Americans are disillusioned with globalisation and Obama is riding high because he is for selective protectionism.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,527289,00.html

Philip

The most widely-used global poverty estimates are by Chen and Ravallion, whose most recent date cover 1981 to 2004:

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2007/04/16/000016406_20070416104010/Rendered/PDF/wps4211.pdf

Using the absolute poverty benchmark of $1 a day (in real, purchasing power parity adjusted 1993 US dollars), they estimates that between 1981 and 2004:

- Absolute poverty in China fell from 64% to 10% of the population, a drop of 505 million people

- Absolute poverty in India declined from 52% to 34% of the population, a drop of on 7 million people in absolute terms (because the population is growing) but a large relative gain;

- Absolute poverty across the developing world fell from 40% to 18% of the population, a decrease of 500 million people;

- In 2004, 970 million people in the developing world lived on less $! a day. If the 2004 poverty ratio was the same as 1981, there would be 2,150 million, or an additional 1,182 million.

These stats are both appalling and encouraging. Apalling, because so much acute poverty still exists. Encouraging, because so much real progress has been made in reducing it. The progress has not been even - South and East Asia has made most progress in reducing poverty, sub-Saharan Africa hardly any.

The evidence suggests strongly to me that globalisation is one of the key drivers of the poverty reductions that have been achieved. The reasons I believe that are:

- trade has been a very important factor in all the economies that have reduced poverty rapidly

- absence of trade and protectionism has been a characteristic of a majority, though not all, of the countries which have failed to reduce poverty

- all of the countries who have managed to accelerate poverty reduction during this period, such as India and Vietnam, saw economic growth and poverty reduction improving after trade liberalisation and deregulation policies were introduced.

Economic growth and poverty reduction are complex, and it may well be that trade liberalisation and deregulation alone are not always sufficient to deliver poverty reductions. But the evidence suggests overwhelmingly that they are a necessary part of the mix.

The $1 a day measurement is no longer a valid measurement and is a simplistic way of looking at poverty.

“We use data from over 500 household surveys spanning 100 countries.”

This would work out to 5 households per country. Surely, the sample size is too small to make any significant conclusion. It’s unbelievable coming from the World Bank.

Conditions have changed significantly in that there is a severe shortage of arable land, food, livestock. Food prices have rocketed and fuel prices are very high. For third world countries the damage caused by pollutants in the production process are not factored in

The passionate advocates of free trade, liberalization, deregulation, globalisation are almost always those big corrupt companies or their representatives that exploit people through unfair treaties, unfair working conditions. Their objective is to get wealth without work and profit with risks.

Recent financial crisis in Asia and Latin America have been taken advantaged of by the IMF and WB

"There is nothing new about what the IMF is doing in Asia. The policies being imposed on, say, South Korea, are remarkably similar to those imposed on most of the countries of Latin America, Africa, and South Asia. And the disastrous consequences of IMF policy are old news for the people of over 90 countries (containing over 80% of the world's population) which have been forced over the last 15 years to sign onto IMF structural adjustment programs (SAPs) or similar austerity packages. They know what the people of East Asia are just learning -- that the IMF's loans and its all-important certification of creditworthiness for international aid and investment are tied to cuts in spending on health and education, currency devaluation, rising interest rates, opening up to foreign ownership of domestic businesses, and the open-ended perpetuation of poverty."
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/50/015.html

What we want is fair trade and not free trade or globalisation. The proponents of free-trade have a hidden agenda.

We have only 14 years left to stop global warming, otherwise the damage done is irreversible. Voting out free-trade advocates will stop global warming

Philip

The researchers used over 500 separate surveys, most of which covered thousands of households, not one survey covering a total of 500 households.

Countries that sign up for IMF restructuring policies are invariably in serious economic trouble, usually of their own making. Tough policies are often needed to get them back on an even keel.

The article you linked to was written more than a decade ago, in January 1998, at the height of the Asian economic meltdown. At the time many similar articles appeared claiming the IMF’s policy recommendations were excessively harsh and would cause long-term damage to the people of the countries concerned. That crisis has long passed and all of the worst affected economies have since recovered, most very strongly – due in part to their implementation of some of the policies advocated by the IMF at the height of the crisis. History has proven the IMF largely right, and its critics largely wrong.

Your claim that “voting out free trade advocates will stop global warming” seems naïve to me. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Your accusation that “passionate advocates of free trade, liberalization, deregulation, globalisation are almost always those big corrupt companies or their representatives that exploit people through unfair treaties, unfair working conditions” is ridiculous and contemptible.

But even if it were true, it would not absolve you from responsibility for presenting your counter-arguments with sound reasoning and credible evidence. I have seen neither in your posts to date

Philip Tang

I am beginning to better understand your concerns over globalisation vs the environment and the interesting link below spells out the potential for further desecration of Australia's eco systems with the author addressing the free trade agreement with the US, which I believe was ratified in 2004.

I have only just learnt that 80% of all agricultural products in Australia are grown for export and since agriculture is regarded by scientists as a major GHG emitter, one must question why we, in this arid land (which suffers badly from salinity, drought and poor top soil) have not considered diversifying.

In addition, cloven hooved livestock and crops occupy some 58% of Australia's land mass.

The live animal exports last year saw over 40,000 dead and diseased animals dumped over-board, not forgetting the thousands of tonnes of animal faeces and urine (from millions of Australia's animals, bred specifically for export) also dumped into the ocean.

Many may say "So what? Ocean spans are enormous." However, there is now the dilemma of about 200 "dead zones" in the world's oceans where fish are unable to survive due largely to the nutrients and other pollutants Australia and other nations recklessly and "so what" dumps into the sea.

Sea birds are starving as a result and for that reason and/or another, are dying around the planet in the thousands.

Globalisation may lift the poor out of poverty, however, to what avail when they continue to grow ill from the insidious effects of air pollution, contaminated crops and poisoned water, a result of their "economic progress." This pollution is occurring on a massive scale and the polluters appear happy. Yes, very happy!

The effects of today's CO2 emissions takes decades to become apparent.

If leaders continue to talk but fail to act, the serious impacts on the environment from globalisation, coupled with maniacal consumerism, may eventually lead to "every nation for itself," and then "every man for himself"....and then what?

http://www.ozprospect.org/pubs/FTA.pdf

PS: Boazy you judge me well - there are no "reds" in my domain, I can assure you.

Free-trade deregulation, globalisation makes local economic structures vulnerable to foreign takeovers. Who did the people of that country vote for? The government? or an MNC?, WB or IMF? The Asian-Financial Crisis proves it.

(modus_operandi_of_IMF/WB)

The foreign banks brutally and abruptly turned off the faucet when overproduction of everything from microchips to chemicals, steel and autos caused sales to decline in the region. The local corporations and banks were unable to pay off their loans to foreign banks.

Then the IMF stepped in to promote the U.S. program. First, it demanded that no aid be given to ailing companies and that they be forced into bankruptcy and layoffs. Then it demanded cuts in government spending so that the funds could be used to buy dollars to pay back U.S. banks, causing more layoffs.

Third, the IMF demanded that governments raise interest rates and slow their economies--thus reducing the competition to the multinational corporations in their struggle for markets, and leading to further unemployment. And finally, they demanded economic concessions: expanded rights to buy up local corporations and expanded access to local markets.

Thus, the United States made sure to push the crisis on to the backs of the oppressed countries in Asia and to extract concessions at the same time. Of course, unemployment is the inevitable result of capitalist overproduction, but the U.S./IMF axis has aggravated the current situation in Asia with a vengeance.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/50/index-a.html

Mahathir from Malaysia proved the IMF and WB are wrong. IMF and WB are there to maximise profits

''There was always a case for capital controls in principle during a crisis,'' said Paul Krugman, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who wrote an influential article defending controls in Fortune magazine on the eve of Malaysia's announcement.

Dr. Mahathir says the moves protected Malaysia from the predations of foreign currency traders. Without controls, he says, the traders would have caused wild swings in the currency, which could have decimated the economy and ignited social unrest in this multiracial society. Business people here initially balked, but most now rally around the Prime Minister.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04EFDD133AF937A3575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Philip

I agree with Krugman that exchange controls are sometimes appropriate for developing countries in financial crises. I also agree with his views on protectionism and the anti-globalisation movement.

I encourage you to read this, as Krugman sums up the case for trade liberalisation far more articulatedly than I can

http://hei.unige.ch/~baldwin/ComparativeAdvantageMyths/PraiseCheapLabour_PK.htm

The following is a superb documentary which gives solid evidence, both in numbers and visually, about how Indoensia suffered as a result globalisation . It is produced by world famous Australian journalist and documentary filmmaker John Pilger.

“Globalisation : New Rulers of The World” in six parts, available on the youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdgMlXoQMbY

If you’ve the stomach watch "21st century war : Indonesia", where the Muslims massacre the Christians, mistakenly associating them with the West, and its institutions e.g. IMF and WB.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOl2kcqyK1I

Amazing isn't it. "and Gandhi was shot by a religious fanatic" says it all. It apears to me that the only rational discourse in all this debate on the world situation comes from people who understand that religion is the root cause of most of the problems. This is because of the way religion is structured. All religions including capitalism, have an unshakeable base or belief or they do not work. The sooner the world grows up and leaves this superstitious humbug behind the better.

Please note: If a person believes in a God that is their business and I will be the last to criticize their personal choice. Raise the ugly head of religion and that is a whole different matter.

LET GANDHI BE BORN AGAIN

Falsehood on the throne firmly saddled
Lies reign supreme, lies the truth buried
Face of innocence beyond recognition
Badly bruised by low cunning
Shameless life and everywhere strife
Men of this world how sadly bow
Not to truth but only to wealth
O, Gandhi dear! Often I hear
You were the great apostle of truth
On this earth under the spell of untruth
Please take rebirth to spread the virtue –truth.