Future of democracy, politics, political parties and lobbying in a world which no longer trusts politicians and cannot be bothered (often) to vote. Crisis of confidence in Westminster, UK mother of all democratic Parliaments, also in America, Greece, Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Ukraine and other nations. Expenses scandal and challenges also in European Commission. Bribery and corruption in political life. Future of politics and political parties. Comment by Dr Patrick Dixon author of The Truth about Westminster, and conference keynote speaker.
Future of your Business, Family and Wider World by Dr Patrick Dixon, Futurist Speaker, Keynotes on Growth Strategies and Leadership, Lecture Slides, Articles and Videos from Conferences - 15 million unique visitors to MAIN Futurist site (articles / keynotes / videos) - link on right to www.globalchange.com
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
May 07, 2010
May 03, 2008
Water wars - global warming and water shortages - crisis
Huge water shortages in future with climate change. Water wars. Global warming, drought and changing patterns of rainfall. Rivers and reservoirs drying up. Water use restrictions. Political action and infrastructure investment. Impact of water shortage on business and farming / agriculture. Conference keynote speaker and Futurist Dr Patrick Dixon.
April 14, 2008
Radical activism -- impact on education
New radical single issue movements and impact on education. Passion and single issues such as global warming, abortion, human rights. Power of petitions, campaigning organisations. Politics. Governments. Why single issues are important in education. Video on future of education, high schools, colleges, universities, curriculum, trends, syllabus, exams, assessments, business schools, MBAs, degree courses - by Dr Patrick Dixon, Futurist conference keynote speaker for NAIS.
June 22, 2007
Truth about Politics: they often pretend to disagree - Video
Most politicians in most democratic countries agree on most things. Just look at how rare it is for a new government to undo legislation passed by the previous administration. Despite all the political posturing, the real debates are not about differences in manifesto promises (often overtaken anyway by global events), but about who has the most competent and experienced leadership team. Most energy in politics today is about single issues such as Iraq, genetically modified food, stem cell research or global warming. Politicians will only have a chance of recovering respect if they start keeping to the truth which is that consensus rules and the opposition are on the whole sensible people with decent policies. Video comment.
December 11, 2005
Villagers blamed for fatal clash in China - Asia - Pacific - International Herald Tribune
News of security forces firing on villagers in China - reported widely. International Herald Tribune reports today from Chinese sources that there have been amaybe round 70,000 protests in China over the last year (but remember there are 1.2 billion people - so the equivalent in the UK would be around 3,000 incidents, still a significant number but nothing like as dramatic). Almost all these protests were resolved peacefully, but in this case things appear to have got out of hand with differing accounts of what happened. Villagers fired off explosive devices - fireworks - which perhaps were mistaken for more serious weaponry. But having said that, firework rockets set off in the direction of armed forces must be considered to be a highly provocative act.
News report from International Herald Tribune is below:
Five days after a fatal assault by security forces put down a demonstration in a village near Hong Kong, the Chinese authorities began Sunday to consolidate an official version of the events, blaming villagers for the violence, but also punishing at least one local commander.
The delayed response by the Chinese government appeared, at least in part, to be part of a carefully measured public relations effort intended to defuse public outrage over the deaths of 20 or more residents of the hamlet, according to villagers' accounts, as well as upholding Beijing's own vision of public order and the "rule of law."
In the first widely circulated account the incident, which occurred in the village of Dongzhou, in southern Guangdong Province, the Xinhua press agency Web site cited the information office of the nearby city of Shanwei, saying that a "chaotic mob" had begun throwing explosives at the police Tuesday night, forcing the police to "open fire in alarm." The report said that three villagers were killed and eight others were injured.
The Chinese news reports said that 170 villagers, led by a few instigators, attacked a local wind power plant as part of their protest against another planned development there, a coal-fired power plant, using knives, blasting caps and Molotov cocktails.
On Sunday, as detailed accounts of the incident given by villagers were being reported in the foreign news media and commented upon in Chinese-language Web sites, the authorities announced the arrest of a local commander who was in charge during the incident. Without naming him, they said he had mishandled the situation under "extremely urgent circumstances."
The Xinhua report did not make clear whether there had been one or more arrests of officers in charge. Villagers interviewed Sunday said they had been told of two arrests.
The official account of the incident, as well as the death toll being reported in the mainland Chinese media, remain at odds with largely concordant accounts of the villagers, dozens of whom have been interviewed since Friday.
According to these accounts, three bodies were taken to a local clinic after the showdown between the protesters and security forces, and another to a hospital in Shanwei, a city about 25 kilometers, or 15 miles, to the north of Dongzhou, which has jurisdiction over the village.
In telephone interviews with villagers on Saturday and Sunday, witnesses spoke repeatedly of an additional seven or eight bodies seen by a roadside near the scene of the violence. Others accounts, given by numerous villagers, spoke of 13 or so bodies floating in the sea after the security forces used automatic weapons on the protesters. The villagers said they had set off fireworks and exploded blasting caps from a distance of more than 90 paces from the massed police and paramilitary forces. Villagers also repeatedly spoke of injured people being approached by security forces and fatally shot at close range.
"There were seven or eight bodies, killed by the spray of gunfire, that fell into a ditch," said one villager, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "The next day, going up along the ditch deep into the grass bushes, villagers found up to 10 bodies. Those inside the ditch were taken away and cremated immediately. I saw it while hiding in the grass bush on the mountain. Immediately I felt like crying, it was such a cruel scene."
The villager's account dovetails with that of several other villagers who spoke of bodies by the roadside near a village crossroads. Others spoke of the effort by soldiers to dispose of corpses, keeping villagers at a distance while they burned some of them, and loading others into a minibus, which some villagers said, then took the bodies to a local crematorium for disposal.
Dongzhou residents also said that at least 40 villagers are still unaccounted for, and it is not known whether the missing were killed, arrested or remain in hiding.
If accurate, these accounts suggest a frenzied effort by authorities to maintain an official death toll of about three people, thereby minimizing the importance of the event, which constitutes the greatest known use of force by the Chinese security forces against ordinary citizens since the Tiananmen massacre in Beijing, in 1989.
Villagers said that with security agents still circulating in large numbers, and going from door to door to interrogate residents, some families that had recovered the corpses of their relatives had buried them hastily, and in secret, to avoid their confiscation.
Others said that the police had offered money to those who would surrender their corpses, as well as money for casing from ammunition recovered from the scene. Villagers said that some people had sold their casings, while others had kept them as evidence of the use of force.
The effort to manage public information about the incident was also apparent on Saturday in Shanwei, where villagers said some of the wounded and dead were taken by the police.
At one hospital, visited by a foreign journalist after 11 p.m., people said injured residents from Dongzhou were being cared for in isolation on a third floor ward. On the third floor, a wing of the hospital was fenced off and guarded by the police.
On Saturday night, roads out of Shanwei for a distance of more than 160 kilometers had police checkpoints that taxi drivers said had been created to search for "fugitives" from Dongzhou.
On Sunday, villagers contacted by telephone claimed that people who visited their hospitalized relatives in Shanwei had been detained.
The deadly confrontation Tuesday was the culmination of months of tension over the construction of a coal-fired power plant at Dongzhou. Villagers said they had not been adequately compensated for the use of their land ? less than $3 per family, according to one account - and feared pollution from the plant would destroy their livelihood as fishermen. The construction plans called for a bay beside the village to be reclaimed with landfill.
"Shanwei's deputy party secretary said that he
wanted to trample Dongzhou into a flat land," said a village resident who gave her name as Jiang.
On Saturday, even as they continued their search of the village and questioning of residents, the authorities said they had no choice but to open fire.
"I'm a good friend of Dongzhou people," one party official said by megaphone as he toured the village. "Nobody wants to see anything like what happened here on the night of Dec. 6, but the people of this village are too barbaric. We were forced to open fire."
From the start, villagers have disputed accounts that said they had attacked the authorities first with explosives.
"We didn't use explosives, because we were too far away," said one villager, a 16-year-old boy who was in the midst of the crowd when the violence erupted. "Someone may have tried, but there's no way we could have reached them. These were homemade weapons, and when they started shooting, we didn't have a chance."
SHENZHEN, China Five days after a fatal assault by security forces put down a demonstration in a village near Hong Kong, the Chinese authorities began Sunday to consolidate an official version of the events, blaming villagers for the violence, but also punishing at least one local commander.
The delayed response by the Chinese government appeared, at least in part, to be part of a carefully measured public relations effort intended to defuse public outrage over the deaths of 20 or more residents of the hamlet, according to villagers' accounts, as well as upholding Beijing's own vision of public order and the "rule of law."
In the first widely circulated account the incident, which occurred in the village of Dongzhou, in southern Guangdong Province, the Xinhua press agency Web site cited the information office of the nearby city of Shanwei, saying that a "chaotic mob" had begun throwing explosives at the police Tuesday night, forcing the police to "open fire in alarm." The report said that three villagers were killed and eight others were injured.
The Chinese news reports said that 170 villagers, led by a few instigators, attacked a local wind power plant as part of their protest against another planned development there, a coal-fired power plant, using knives, blasting caps and Molotov cocktails.
On Sunday, as detailed accounts of the incident given by villagers were being reported in the foreign news media and commented upon in Chinese-language Web sites, the authorities announced the arrest of a local commander who was in charge during the incident. Without naming him, they said he had mishandled the situation under "extremely urgent circumstances."
The Xinhua report did not make clear whether there had been one or more arrests of officers in charge. Villagers interviewed Sunday said they had been told of two arrests.
The official account of the incident, as well as the death toll being reported in the mainland Chinese media, remain at odds with largely concordant accounts of the villagers, dozens of whom have been interviewed since Friday.
According to these accounts, three bodies were taken to a local clinic after the showdown between the protesters and security forces, and another to a hospital in Shanwei, a city about 25 kilometers, or 15 miles, to the north of Dongzhou, which has jurisdiction over the village.
In telephone interviews with villagers on Saturday and Sunday, witnesses spoke repeatedly of an additional seven or eight bodies seen by a roadside near the scene of the violence. Others accounts, given by numerous villagers, spoke of 13 or so bodies floating in the sea after the security forces used automatic weapons on the protesters. The villagers said they had set off fireworks and exploded blasting caps from a distance of more than 90 paces from the massed police and paramilitary forces. Villagers also repeatedly spoke of injured people being approached by security forces and fatally shot at close range.
"There were seven or eight bodies, killed by the spray of gunfire, that fell into a ditch," said one villager, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "The next day, going up along the ditch deep into the grass bushes, villagers found up to 10 bodies. Those inside the ditch were taken away and cremated immediately. I saw it while hiding in the grass bush on the mountain. Immediately I felt like crying, it was such a cruel scene."
The villager's account dovetails with that of several other villagers who spoke of bodies by the roadside near a village crossroads. Others spoke of the effort by soldiers to dispose of corpses, keeping villagers at a distance while they burned some of them, and loading others into a minibus, which some villagers said, then took the bodies to a local crematorium for disposal.
Dongzhou residents also said that at least 40 villagers are still unaccounted for, and it is not known whether the missing were killed, arrested or remain in hiding.
If accurate, these accounts suggest a frenzied effort by authorities to maintain an official death toll of about three people, thereby minimizing the importance of the event, which constitutes the greatest known use of force by the Chinese security forces against ordinary citizens since the Tiananmen massacre in Beijing, in 1989.
Villagers said that with security agents still circulating in large numbers, and going from door to door to interrogate residents, some families that had recovered the corpses of their relatives had buried them hastily, and in secret, to avoid their confiscation.
Others said that the police had offered money to those who would surrender their corpses, as well as money for casing from ammunition recovered from the scene. Villagers said that some people had sold their casings, while others had kept them as evidence of the use of force.
The effort to manage public information about the incident was also apparent on Saturday in Shanwei, where villagers said some of the wounded and dead were taken by the police.
At one hospital, visited by a foreign journalist after 11 p.m., people said injured residents from Dongzhou were being cared for in isolation on a third floor ward. On the third floor, a wing of the hospital was fenced off and guarded by the police.
On Saturday night, roads out of Shanwei for a distance of more than 160 kilometers had police checkpoints that taxi drivers said had been created to search for "fugitives" from Dongzhou.
On Sunday, villagers contacted by telephone claimed that people who visited their hospitalized relatives in Shanwei had been detained.
The deadly confrontation Tuesday was the culmination of months of tension over the construction of a coal-fired power plant at Dongzhou. Villagers said they had not been adequately compensated for the use of their land ? less than $3 per family, according to one account - and feared pollution from the plant would destroy their livelihood as fishermen. The construction plans called for a bay beside the village to be reclaimed with landfill.
"Shanwei's deputy party secretary said that he
wanted to trample Dongzhou into a flat land," said a village resident who gave her name as Jiang.
On Saturday, even as they continued their search of the village and questioning of residents, the authorities said they had no choice but to open fire.
"I'm a good friend of Dongzhou people," one party official said by megaphone as he toured the village. "Nobody wants to see anything like what happened here on the night of Dec. 6, but the people of this village are too barbaric. We were forced to open fire."
From the start, villagers have disputed accounts that said they had attacked the authorities first with explosives.
"We didn't use explosives, because we were too far away," said one villager, a 16-year-old boy who was in the midst of the crowd when the violence erupted. "Someone may have tried, but there's no way we could have reached them. These were homemade weapons, and when they started shooting, we didn't have a chance."
SHENZHEN, China Five days after a fatal assault by security forces put down a demonstration in a village near Hong Kong, the Chinese authorities began Sunday to consolidate an official version of the events, blaming villagers for the violence, but also punishing at least one local commander.
The delayed response by the Chinese government appeared, at least in part, to be part of a carefully measured public relations effort intended to defuse public outrage over the deaths of 20 or more residents of the hamlet, according to villagers' accounts, as well as upholding Beijing's own vision of public order and the "rule of law."
In the first widely circulated account the incident, which occurred in the village of Dongzhou, in southern Guangdong Province, the Xinhua press agency Web site cited the information office of the nearby city of Shanwei, saying that a "chaotic mob" had begun throwing explosives at the police Tuesday night, forcing the police to "open fire in alarm." The report said that three villagers were killed and eight others were injured.
The Chinese news reports said that 170 villagers, led by a few instigators, attacked a local wind power plant as part of their protest against another planned development there, a coal-fired power plant, using knives, blasting caps and Molotov cocktails.
On Sunday, as detailed accounts of the incident given by villagers were being reported in the foreign news media and commented upon in Chinese-language Web sites, the authorities announced the arrest of a local commander who was in charge during the incident. Without naming him, they said he had mishandled the situation under "extremely urgent circumstances."
The Xinhua report did not make clear whether there had been one or more arrests of officers in charge. Villagers interviewed Sunday said they had been told of two arrests.
The official account of the incident, as well as the death toll being reported in the mainland Chinese media, remain at odds with largely concordant
News report from International Herald Tribune is below:
Five days after a fatal assault by security forces put down a demonstration in a village near Hong Kong, the Chinese authorities began Sunday to consolidate an official version of the events, blaming villagers for the violence, but also punishing at least one local commander.
The delayed response by the Chinese government appeared, at least in part, to be part of a carefully measured public relations effort intended to defuse public outrage over the deaths of 20 or more residents of the hamlet, according to villagers' accounts, as well as upholding Beijing's own vision of public order and the "rule of law."
In the first widely circulated account the incident, which occurred in the village of Dongzhou, in southern Guangdong Province, the Xinhua press agency Web site cited the information office of the nearby city of Shanwei, saying that a "chaotic mob" had begun throwing explosives at the police Tuesday night, forcing the police to "open fire in alarm." The report said that three villagers were killed and eight others were injured.
The Chinese news reports said that 170 villagers, led by a few instigators, attacked a local wind power plant as part of their protest against another planned development there, a coal-fired power plant, using knives, blasting caps and Molotov cocktails.
On Sunday, as detailed accounts of the incident given by villagers were being reported in the foreign news media and commented upon in Chinese-language Web sites, the authorities announced the arrest of a local commander who was in charge during the incident. Without naming him, they said he had mishandled the situation under "extremely urgent circumstances."
The Xinhua report did not make clear whether there had been one or more arrests of officers in charge. Villagers interviewed Sunday said they had been told of two arrests.
The official account of the incident, as well as the death toll being reported in the mainland Chinese media, remain at odds with largely concordant accounts of the villagers, dozens of whom have been interviewed since Friday.
According to these accounts, three bodies were taken to a local clinic after the showdown between the protesters and security forces, and another to a hospital in Shanwei, a city about 25 kilometers, or 15 miles, to the north of Dongzhou, which has jurisdiction over the village.
In telephone interviews with villagers on Saturday and Sunday, witnesses spoke repeatedly of an additional seven or eight bodies seen by a roadside near the scene of the violence. Others accounts, given by numerous villagers, spoke of 13 or so bodies floating in the sea after the security forces used automatic weapons on the protesters. The villagers said they had set off fireworks and exploded blasting caps from a distance of more than 90 paces from the massed police and paramilitary forces. Villagers also repeatedly spoke of injured people being approached by security forces and fatally shot at close range.
"There were seven or eight bodies, killed by the spray of gunfire, that fell into a ditch," said one villager, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "The next day, going up along the ditch deep into the grass bushes, villagers found up to 10 bodies. Those inside the ditch were taken away and cremated immediately. I saw it while hiding in the grass bush on the mountain. Immediately I felt like crying, it was such a cruel scene."
The villager's account dovetails with that of several other villagers who spoke of bodies by the roadside near a village crossroads. Others spoke of the effort by soldiers to dispose of corpses, keeping villagers at a distance while they burned some of them, and loading others into a minibus, which some villagers said, then took the bodies to a local crematorium for disposal.
Dongzhou residents also said that at least 40 villagers are still unaccounted for, and it is not known whether the missing were killed, arrested or remain in hiding.
If accurate, these accounts suggest a frenzied effort by authorities to maintain an official death toll of about three people, thereby minimizing the importance of the event, which constitutes the greatest known use of force by the Chinese security forces against ordinary citizens since the Tiananmen massacre in Beijing, in 1989.
Villagers said that with security agents still circulating in large numbers, and going from door to door to interrogate residents, some families that had recovered the corpses of their relatives had buried them hastily, and in secret, to avoid their confiscation.
Others said that the police had offered money to those who would surrender their corpses, as well as money for casing from ammunition recovered from the scene. Villagers said that some people had sold their casings, while others had kept them as evidence of the use of force.
The effort to manage public information about the incident was also apparent on Saturday in Shanwei, where villagers said some of the wounded and dead were taken by the police.
At one hospital, visited by a foreign journalist after 11 p.m., people said injured residents from Dongzhou were being cared for in isolation on a third floor ward. On the third floor, a wing of the hospital was fenced off and guarded by the police.
On Saturday night, roads out of Shanwei for a distance of more than 160 kilometers had police checkpoints that taxi drivers said had been created to search for "fugitives" from Dongzhou.
On Sunday, villagers contacted by telephone claimed that people who visited their hospitalized relatives in Shanwei had been detained.
The deadly confrontation Tuesday was the culmination of months of tension over the construction of a coal-fired power plant at Dongzhou. Villagers said they had not been adequately compensated for the use of their land ? less than $3 per family, according to one account - and feared pollution from the plant would destroy their livelihood as fishermen. The construction plans called for a bay beside the village to be reclaimed with landfill.
"Shanwei's deputy party secretary said that he
wanted to trample Dongzhou into a flat land," said a village resident who gave her name as Jiang.
On Saturday, even as they continued their search of the village and questioning of residents, the authorities said they had no choice but to open fire.
"I'm a good friend of Dongzhou people," one party official said by megaphone as he toured the village. "Nobody wants to see anything like what happened here on the night of Dec. 6, but the people of this village are too barbaric. We were forced to open fire."
From the start, villagers have disputed accounts that said they had attacked the authorities first with explosives.
"We didn't use explosives, because we were too far away," said one villager, a 16-year-old boy who was in the midst of the crowd when the violence erupted. "Someone may have tried, but there's no way we could have reached them. These were homemade weapons, and when they started shooting, we didn't have a chance."
SHENZHEN, China Five days after a fatal assault by security forces put down a demonstration in a village near Hong Kong, the Chinese authorities began Sunday to consolidate an official version of the events, blaming villagers for the violence, but also punishing at least one local commander.
The delayed response by the Chinese government appeared, at least in part, to be part of a carefully measured public relations effort intended to defuse public outrage over the deaths of 20 or more residents of the hamlet, according to villagers' accounts, as well as upholding Beijing's own vision of public order and the "rule of law."
In the first widely circulated account the incident, which occurred in the village of Dongzhou, in southern Guangdong Province, the Xinhua press agency Web site cited the information office of the nearby city of Shanwei, saying that a "chaotic mob" had begun throwing explosives at the police Tuesday night, forcing the police to "open fire in alarm." The report said that three villagers were killed and eight others were injured.
The Chinese news reports said that 170 villagers, led by a few instigators, attacked a local wind power plant as part of their protest against another planned development there, a coal-fired power plant, using knives, blasting caps and Molotov cocktails.
On Sunday, as detailed accounts of the incident given by villagers were being reported in the foreign news media and commented upon in Chinese-language Web sites, the authorities announced the arrest of a local commander who was in charge during the incident. Without naming him, they said he had mishandled the situation under "extremely urgent circumstances."
The Xinhua report did not make clear whether there had been one or more arrests of officers in charge. Villagers interviewed Sunday said they had been told of two arrests.
The official account of the incident, as well as the death toll being reported in the mainland Chinese media, remain at odds with largely concordant accounts of the villagers, dozens of whom have been interviewed since Friday.
According to these accounts, three bodies were taken to a local clinic after the showdown between the protesters and security forces, and another to a hospital in Shanwei, a city about 25 kilometers, or 15 miles, to the north of Dongzhou, which has jurisdiction over the village.
In telephone interviews with villagers on Saturday and Sunday, witnesses spoke repeatedly of an additional seven or eight bodies seen by a roadside near the scene of the violence. Others accounts, given by numerous villagers, spoke of 13 or so bodies floating in the sea after the security forces used automatic weapons on the protesters. The villagers said they had set off fireworks and exploded blasting caps from a distance of more than 90 paces from the massed police and paramilitary forces. Villagers also repeatedly spoke of injured people being approached by security forces and fatally shot at close range.
"There were seven or eight bodies, killed by the spray of gunfire, that fell into a ditch," said one villager, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "The next day, going up along the ditch deep into the grass bushes, villagers found up to 10 bodies. Those inside the ditch were taken away and cremated immediately. I saw it while hiding in the grass bush on the mountain. Immediately I felt like crying, it was such a cruel scene."
The villager's account dovetails with that of several other villagers who spoke of bodies by the roadside near a village crossroads. Others spoke of the effort by soldiers to dispose of corpses, keeping villagers at a distance while they burned some of them, and loading others into a minibus, which some villagers said, then took the bodies to a local crematorium for disposal.
Dongzhou residents also said that at least 40 villagers are still unaccounted for, and it is not known whether the missing were killed, arrested or remain in hiding.
If accurate, these accounts suggest a frenzied effort by authorities to maintain an official death toll of about three people, thereby minimizing the importance of the event, which constitutes the greatest known use of force by the Chinese security forces against ordinary citizens since the Tiananmen massacre in Beijing, in 1989.
Villagers said that with security agents still circulating in large numbers, and going from door to door to interrogate residents, some families that had recovered the corpses of their relatives had buried them hastily, and in secret, to avoid their confiscation.
Others said that the police had offered money to those who would surrender their corpses, as well as money for casing from ammunition recovered from the scene. Villagers said that some people had sold their casings, while others had kept them as evidence of the use of force.
The effort to manage public information about the incident was also apparent on Saturday in Shanwei, where villagers said some of the wounded and dead were taken by the police.
At one hospital, visited by a foreign journalist after 11 p.m., people said injured residents from Dongzhou were being cared for in isolation on a third floor ward. On the third floor, a wing of the hospital was fenced off and guarded by the police.
On Saturday night, roads out of Shanwei for a distance of more than 160 kilometers had police checkpoints that taxi drivers said had been created to search for "fugitives" from Dongzhou.
On Sunday, villagers contacted by telephone claimed that people who visited their hospitalized relatives in Shanwei had been detained.
The deadly confrontation Tuesday was the culmination of months of tension over the construction of a coal-fired power plant at Dongzhou. Villagers said they had not been adequately compensated for the use of their land ? less than $3 per family, according to one account - and feared pollution from the plant would destroy their livelihood as fishermen. The construction plans called for a bay beside the village to be reclaimed with landfill.
"Shanwei's deputy party secretary said that he
wanted to trample Dongzhou into a flat land," said a village resident who gave her name as Jiang.
On Saturday, even as they continued their search of the village and questioning of residents, the authorities said they had no choice but to open fire.
"I'm a good friend of Dongzhou people," one party official said by megaphone as he toured the village. "Nobody wants to see anything like what happened here on the night of Dec. 6, but the people of this village are too barbaric. We were forced to open fire."
From the start, villagers have disputed accounts that said they had attacked the authorities first with explosives.
"We didn't use explosives, because we were too far away," said one villager, a 16-year-old boy who was in the midst of the crowd when the violence erupted. "Someone may have tried, but there's no way we could have reached them. These were homemade weapons, and when they started shooting, we didn't have a chance."
SHENZHEN, China Five days after a fatal assault by security forces put down a demonstration in a village near Hong Kong, the Chinese authorities began Sunday to consolidate an official version of the events, blaming villagers for the violence, but also punishing at least one local commander.
The delayed response by the Chinese government appeared, at least in part, to be part of a carefully measured public relations effort intended to defuse public outrage over the deaths of 20 or more residents of the hamlet, according to villagers' accounts, as well as upholding Beijing's own vision of public order and the "rule of law."
In the first widely circulated account the incident, which occurred in the village of Dongzhou, in southern Guangdong Province, the Xinhua press agency Web site cited the information office of the nearby city of Shanwei, saying that a "chaotic mob" had begun throwing explosives at the police Tuesday night, forcing the police to "open fire in alarm." The report said that three villagers were killed and eight others were injured.
The Chinese news reports said that 170 villagers, led by a few instigators, attacked a local wind power plant as part of their protest against another planned development there, a coal-fired power plant, using knives, blasting caps and Molotov cocktails.
On Sunday, as detailed accounts of the incident given by villagers were being reported in the foreign news media and commented upon in Chinese-language Web sites, the authorities announced the arrest of a local commander who was in charge during the incident. Without naming him, they said he had mishandled the situation under "extremely urgent circumstances."
The Xinhua report did not make clear whether there had been one or more arrests of officers in charge. Villagers interviewed Sunday said they had been told of two arrests.
The official account of the incident, as well as the death toll being reported in the mainland Chinese media, remain at odds with largely concordant
April 02, 2005
Media coverage - Dr Patrick Dixon's Futurewise, The Truth about Drugs and other books / issues relating to the future: "Recent coverage: Daily Telegraph - increasing profits by 10% by connecting with passion - and the $20,000 challenge, Financial Times - Push for Coffee Bean Levy - following speech at the World Coffee Organization: Daily Post (Liverpool) - 5 steps to a better business, TImes of India - the Spirit of Success, Borsen (Denmark equivalent of Financial Times) - how to create a better business, Lisbon press - the need for innovation in marketing, Vida Economica - Portugal, Times of Malta - marketing trends, Borsen - the need for innovation in industrial design, The Herald - handwriting demise in a techno-age, press in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Portugal on a range of issues, El Cronista Commercial (Spain) - the top 50 most influential business thinkers, Diario Economico, Portugal - innovation in marketing, ABA Banking Journal - Working for nothing - lessons for corporates from non-profits, Talk Radio on stem cell research, Daily Telegraph, Moral Maze (BBC Radio 4) - should politicians have to resign over personal indiscretions? Channel 4 News - next generation mobile phones. Daily Mail - human / animal hybrids. Daily Mail - salmon that spawn trout. Guardian - future of CDs and music downloading, MP3 and file-sharing. On cloning: Sunday Times (Perth), Irish Times, Daily Mail, Courier-Mail, The Sun, Western Daily Press, The Herald, The Scotsman, The Times, Scottish Daily Record, The Mirror, Times of Zambia. "
March 18, 2005
Watch TV documentary about Dr Patrick Dixon, Futurist:
"Watch SWR TV documentary on Dr Patrick Dixon, Futurist - in London and Dubai
What does a Futurist actually do? Dr Dixon is contacted by TV, radio and press journalists around 200 times a year (up to 70 times in a single day) for comment on major issues and trends. Here is a short film made as a result of one of those calls.
SWR, the German equivalent of the BBC, sent a film crew to London to follow Dr Patrick Dixon over four days in December 2003. Dr Dixon has been ranked as one of the 50 most influential global business thinkers alive today (Thinkers50). SWR came to find out what day to day life is like.
The short film sequence joins Dixon at a government-sponsored think-tank on global trends with 25 other analysts, at home in his own TV studio from which he lectures to audiences in up to nine nations at the same time. We then travel with Dixon to Dubai where he speaks about 'The Spirit of Success' at a major client event for Fedex / Times of India, and then travels on, commenting on wider geo-political issues. "
"Watch SWR TV documentary on Dr Patrick Dixon, Futurist - in London and Dubai
What does a Futurist actually do? Dr Dixon is contacted by TV, radio and press journalists around 200 times a year (up to 70 times in a single day) for comment on major issues and trends. Here is a short film made as a result of one of those calls.
SWR, the German equivalent of the BBC, sent a film crew to London to follow Dr Patrick Dixon over four days in December 2003. Dr Dixon has been ranked as one of the 50 most influential global business thinkers alive today (Thinkers50). SWR came to find out what day to day life is like.
The short film sequence joins Dixon at a government-sponsored think-tank on global trends with 25 other analysts, at home in his own TV studio from which he lectures to audiences in up to nine nations at the same time. We then travel with Dixon to Dubai where he speaks about 'The Spirit of Success' at a major client event for Fedex / Times of India, and then travels on, commenting on wider geo-political issues. "
March 15, 2005
books.htm: "Twelve Books by Dr Patrick Dixon
320,000 books printed in 19 languages (English, French, German, Polish, Chinese, Thai, Portugese, Estonian, Latvian, Russian, Czech, Hausa, Paite, Hindi, Urdu, Hungarian, Luganda, Nepalese and Swahili), plus a million chapters downloaded in just 15 months. Dr Dixon is often described in the world's media as Europe's leading Futurist, and has been ranked as one of the world's 50 most influential business thinkers.
NEWS: 'Building a Better Business' published in April 2005 with a $20,000 challenge - see below - also press reviews.
Free copies of 'AIDS and You' are available now in English, Spanish, French and Russian and many other languages listed above, in bulk, to organisations for distribution in developing countries - from ACET International Alliance website, in partnership with OM. The widely acclaimed handbook 'The Truth about AIDS' is available on the same basis. Save lives and care for those affected: donate to ACET online. $15 supports 10 AIDS orphans in Zimbabwe for a month; $130 supports a schools worker in Ukraine for a month; $50 pays for 150 books for project workers in India."
320,000 books printed in 19 languages (English, French, German, Polish, Chinese, Thai, Portugese, Estonian, Latvian, Russian, Czech, Hausa, Paite, Hindi, Urdu, Hungarian, Luganda, Nepalese and Swahili), plus a million chapters downloaded in just 15 months. Dr Dixon is often described in the world's media as Europe's leading Futurist, and has been ranked as one of the world's 50 most influential business thinkers.
NEWS: 'Building a Better Business' published in April 2005 with a $20,000 challenge - see below - also press reviews.
Free copies of 'AIDS and You' are available now in English, Spanish, French and Russian and many other languages listed above, in bulk, to organisations for distribution in developing countries - from ACET International Alliance website, in partnership with OM. The widely acclaimed handbook 'The Truth about AIDS' is available on the same basis. Save lives and care for those affected: donate to ACET online. $15 supports 10 AIDS orphans in Zimbabwe for a month; $130 supports a schools worker in Ukraine for a month; $50 pays for 150 books for project workers in India."
March 13, 2005
AARP - Future Trends - Ageing / health / demographics and society - by Dr Patrick Dixon
The Future of Ageing - Science, demographics, politics and society impact of a society that could see huge increases in life expectancy over the next 50 years. Keynote for senior leadership of AARP - US action group representing over 35 million people over the age of 50.
The Future of Ageing - Science, demographics, politics and society impact of a society that could see huge increases in life expectancy over the next 50 years. Keynote for senior leadership of AARP - US action group representing over 35 million people over the age of 50.
March 05, 2005
The Truth About Westminster: "Democracy in Britain is in a dangerous state. Faith in politicians has sunk to an all-time low. But is the public image fair? Cash for questions, lobbying, political favours, patronage, party funding, whipping, indiscretions, secrecy, half-truths...What lies behind these issues?
'In a dictatorship I would have been bumped off - I knew too much. Instead I was sacked.' - Ex-Minister
'Some people can be bought off with an MBE. Others with a knighthood.' - Former Party Agent
'The life of MPs is liable to place them in the path of great sexual temptation.' - Lord Healey
'I sometimes wonder if we can afford the luxury of adversarial politics.' - Lord Weatherill
'We have reached the stage when every man and woman in this House is an object of suspicion.' - Sir Edward Heath
'We cannot legislate for integrity.' - Betty Boothrod
'We must be active in the political arena.' - Clive Calver
Patrick Dixon takes us behind the headlines to give a measured view, based on a series of revealing interviews backed by detailed research. He finds man MPs and Peers struggling with great pressures, conflicts and moral dilemmas. He concludes that the system itself is corrupting, and he proposes comprehensive reforms. He believes men and women with integrity have a vital role to play. "
'In a dictatorship I would have been bumped off - I knew too much. Instead I was sacked.' - Ex-Minister
'Some people can be bought off with an MBE. Others with a knighthood.' - Former Party Agent
'The life of MPs is liable to place them in the path of great sexual temptation.' - Lord Healey
'I sometimes wonder if we can afford the luxury of adversarial politics.' - Lord Weatherill
'We have reached the stage when every man and woman in this House is an object of suspicion.' - Sir Edward Heath
'We cannot legislate for integrity.' - Betty Boothrod
'We must be active in the political arena.' - Clive Calver
Patrick Dixon takes us behind the headlines to give a measured view, based on a series of revealing interviews backed by detailed research. He finds man MPs and Peers struggling with great pressures, conflicts and moral dilemmas. He concludes that the system itself is corrupting, and he proposes comprehensive reforms. He believes men and women with integrity have a vital role to play. "
February 06, 2004
The truth about the Iraq war
The Truth about the Iraq War
We can debate the morality and chaotic aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War, and miss the bigger picture, which is far wider than the post 9/11 war against terror, or the current crisis among Palestinians and Israelis, or the situation in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, or the convulsions in the UN and the EU, or US global dominance and accusations of aggressive imperialism.
The problem of the global village - and the truth about the Iraq war
Here is a simple but fundamental question, which was at the heart of the Iraq war controversy: how is the global village to run and be governed? It’s the hidden basis of the political conflicts in the UN over Iraq and similar issues.
The inescapable fact is that we are moving further every day to a one–world economy without a one–world government or legal structure.
Last-century thinking describes a world of nation states, where national sovereignty is absolute and cannot be violated under international law except to resist aggression and in self-defence. That was the French and German position on the war with Iraq and it has very powerful historical precedent.
But life has moved on. We will need a new model altogether if we are to live in prosperity and peace during the third millennium. That’s because at least 4 billion people are already living in towns, cities or rural areas which are profoundly affected by globalisation and the techno-communication revolution. They are already citizens of the global village, or the global nation of all nations.
The start of a new world order began with war in Iraq
Since the collapse of Communism we have seen the beginnings of a new world order: all nations working together in a semi-democratic global body to seek the common good, for the whole of humanity. It may be primitive and rather innefective, but is becoming more significant.
In the last decade the UN has grown in stature from a feeble committee weakened by bickering, paralysed by a tiny minority of countries who had the right of veto. The UN has become a stronger unifying force in world affairs. That’s why sharp debates over how to discipline Iraq’s government have been all the more shocking.
But don’t be misled by aggressive speeches: when you think back to the days of the Cold War, the consensus amongst developed nations in early 2003 for some kind of significant UN intervention in Iraq’s affairs was overwhelming by historical standards, although you would have been forgiven for thinking the opposite from the media coverage of UN voting intentions.
Lesson from the Cold War
During the Cold War, any threat of military invasion of a country by Russia or America would have produced in most cases immediate counter-threats by the other. As a result most wars were waged by proxy in far away places, between small nations funded and armed by both superpowers.
But in March 2003, despite all the hot air, not one nation in the world offered to fight for Sadam and protect Iraq from American invasion, least of all Russia or China. Not one other national army offered soldiers or weapons to protect Iraq national sovereignty, to liberate the people of Bagdad from foreign US-dominated forces, to underpin survival of the Sadam regime.
Sure, some nations held back, abstaining, remaining neutral. Some national leaders were making strong statements of protest - but these turned out to be only words, not backed by bullets. Where were the countries lining up to sell hundreds of high-tech missiles or tanks or planes to Iraq?
So the strange reality is that while it appears at first sight that the new fragile world order is crumbling into the dust, the opposite may be the case. Of course much depend on how Iraq instabily settles or flares, the early and "successful" withdrawal of US and other foreign troops, life for the Iraqi people post-withdrawal, and the impact on the region as a whole.
The current tensions and conflicts may well fuel further waves of terrorism, especially if the US fails to take a powerful lead, together with international support, to help establish a “just” Middle East peace settlement for both Palestinians and Israelis. It may also lead to destabilising regime changes in other Arab nations, replacing family dynasties with anti-American Islamic fundamentalism in countries like Saudi Arabia. But the current spats are unlikely to lead to destruction of the UN, nor the break up of the EU, nor the rapid neutering of American power - quite the opposite.
The world is far more united than words suggest
The truth is that most nations of the world united in condemnation of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, and again in imposing sanctions of many kinds over more than a decade since. They united again post-9/11 in a coalition against terror and more recently in insisting that UN-monitored disarmament took place.
When it came to discussions about weapons inspections and the threat of armed intervention, disagreement was almost entirely over process rather than substance: how disarmament should be achieved, measured, monitored and if necessary imposed, and over what timescale? At what point should the international community conclude that all alternatives to armed intervention have been exhausted? What form should military intervention take under such circumstances? How should it be led and financed? How should the peace be kept, reconstruction proceed and national autonomy be re-established?
Our memories are short. The level of multinational consensus about the need if necessary to intervene in the affairs of rogue states is extraordinary and unusual in world history.
That is why there is such a consensus about Iran now amongst France, Germany, Russia, UK, US, China, India and many other less powerful nations about the need for the international community to act by force if necessary, if Iran continues despite many warnings with an active programme to rapidly develop nuclear warheads.
And so we return to the global village – or rather the global nation of all humanity.
Economically, the world is already operating as a single closely inter-related organism. The problem is that mechanisms for governance, law and order are still primitive – feudal or medieval in nature. We have yet to grow up.
So we have “cities” in the global nation behaving like little kingdoms, taking the law into their own hands whenever it suits them (Russia and America), while at other times appealing to the “government” to impose common will on others.
What of the future? Life after the Iraq war will never be the same
Expect the world-wide love-hate relationship with America to become even more polarised, on the one hand hungrily devouring American media culture, on the other hand increasingly bitter and resentful at American power and lack of sensitivity to how the rest of the world works.
Expect new generations of terrorists to take courage and exact “revenge”, with the aim of “wounding American pride and arrogance”. Every one of them will tell you they are fighting for a higher moral cause.
Expect America to continue to feel deeply hurt, increasingly isolated and angry, the target of frequent terror attacks and general animosity in many places, acting forcefully around the world wherever it feels national interests dictate, and withdrawing to lick its wounds when it does not.
Expect America to be increasingly hostile to the idea of submitting in any respect whatsoever to the will of the global majority, whether on the environment, trade agreements or any other matter, and to be in even less mood to compromise than pre-Iraq War. Expect the US at the same time to make intensive diplomatic efforts to try to win back lost friends, but with ever-deepening suspicion of UN controls, inefficiency, corruption and influence.
In contrast, expect almost the entire rest of the world to invest intensively in the UN as the sole vehicle for solving complex international issues, in a quest to create a more sustainable and peaceful future.
Expect the EU to forge ahead with renewed energy to create structures to balance US power economically and militarily. But the EU will be severely restrained by ongoing internal conflicts, which will be made worse by every new country joining, as well as by unfolding events. Expect the UK to be frozen out of significant decisions by France and Germany who will seize every chance to dominate the future of the EU together, and to humiliate the US. Expect UK doubts to grow about whether it will ever sit comfortably within a Franco-German led federation of EU states. Expect France and Germany to be increasingly worried about rapid enlargement, and dilution of their power by pro-US nations with shaky economies, arguing passionately that the world will be a better place if there is a significant European counter-balance to the US.
Expect several non-European nations to embark on dangerous military adventures, arguing that the US has set a new model for them to copy: “legally” invading other countries when they could possibly be a future threat. India and Pakistan, North and South Korea and so on. These local wars could produce huge problems for the future stability of the world. Expect concerns about this to lead to calls for stronger structures and processes within the UN.
Reforming the UN as a more democratic global authority
A key challenge will be to reform the UN so that it can become more effective and fair as a federation of nations. The current powers of veto are anti-democratic and smack of nineteenth tyranny, held as they are by very few supremely powerful, wealthy nations,
The UN will only carry true global moral authority when each nation is able to cast votes in proportion to it’s contribution to global population, so that each citizen is represented equally without fear or favour. But this is an unthinkable prospect.
Even an idea of such a global assembly will provoke huge reactions in wealthy nations, because it strikes to the root of the most important unsolved problem on the planet today: the fact that most people are extremely poor, with no voice and no vote in world affairs, living off less than $2 a day.
Why global democracy is so unpopular
And so we find an interesting fact: those who live in democratic nations, who uphold democracy as the only honourable form of government, are not really true democrats after all. They have little or no interest in global democracy, in a nation of nations, in seeking the common good of the whole of humanity.
And it is this single fact, more than any other, this inequality of wealth and privilege in our shrinking global village, that will make it more likely that our future is dominate by terror groups, freedom fighters, justice-seekers, hell-raisers, protestors and violent agitators.
The lesson of history is that tyrannies and dictatorships get overthrown, that the will of the majority eventually finds a voice and freedom.
And that is exactly what will eventually happen in our non-democratic, dysfunctional, unjust, global village.
We cannot wind back the clock
We cannot wind the clock back fifty years to a cosy world where these country by country contrasts no longer matter. CNN and Hollywood have seen to that.
On TV screens in the poorest slums on earth, millions of people see their wealthy neighbours go about their daily lives while they scrabble in the dust to find money for basic food and shelter. They have seen the truth.
The digital society created the global village and globalisation the basic rules for trading within it, but neither has taught us how to live together in such a small cultural space. This is the greatest moral challenge of our time.
In a future world where small numbers of activists will wield unimagineable power with dirty bombs, nuclear devices, chemical weapons and strange viruses, our very survival will depend on finding a way to live together in harmony, with freedom and justice for all.
And that will require further extrensions of global governance.
History may record that it took us many decades, possibly, to agree to it – but what will be the pain along the way?
The Truth about the Iraq War
We can debate the morality and chaotic aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War, and miss the bigger picture, which is far wider than the post 9/11 war against terror, or the current crisis among Palestinians and Israelis, or the situation in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, or the convulsions in the UN and the EU, or US global dominance and accusations of aggressive imperialism.
The problem of the global village - and the truth about the Iraq war
Here is a simple but fundamental question, which was at the heart of the Iraq war controversy: how is the global village to run and be governed? It’s the hidden basis of the political conflicts in the UN over Iraq and similar issues.
The inescapable fact is that we are moving further every day to a one–world economy without a one–world government or legal structure.
Last-century thinking describes a world of nation states, where national sovereignty is absolute and cannot be violated under international law except to resist aggression and in self-defence. That was the French and German position on the war with Iraq and it has very powerful historical precedent.
But life has moved on. We will need a new model altogether if we are to live in prosperity and peace during the third millennium. That’s because at least 4 billion people are already living in towns, cities or rural areas which are profoundly affected by globalisation and the techno-communication revolution. They are already citizens of the global village, or the global nation of all nations.
The start of a new world order began with war in Iraq
Since the collapse of Communism we have seen the beginnings of a new world order: all nations working together in a semi-democratic global body to seek the common good, for the whole of humanity. It may be primitive and rather innefective, but is becoming more significant.
In the last decade the UN has grown in stature from a feeble committee weakened by bickering, paralysed by a tiny minority of countries who had the right of veto. The UN has become a stronger unifying force in world affairs. That’s why sharp debates over how to discipline Iraq’s government have been all the more shocking.
But don’t be misled by aggressive speeches: when you think back to the days of the Cold War, the consensus amongst developed nations in early 2003 for some kind of significant UN intervention in Iraq’s affairs was overwhelming by historical standards, although you would have been forgiven for thinking the opposite from the media coverage of UN voting intentions.
Lesson from the Cold War
During the Cold War, any threat of military invasion of a country by Russia or America would have produced in most cases immediate counter-threats by the other. As a result most wars were waged by proxy in far away places, between small nations funded and armed by both superpowers.
But in March 2003, despite all the hot air, not one nation in the world offered to fight for Sadam and protect Iraq from American invasion, least of all Russia or China. Not one other national army offered soldiers or weapons to protect Iraq national sovereignty, to liberate the people of Bagdad from foreign US-dominated forces, to underpin survival of the Sadam regime.
Sure, some nations held back, abstaining, remaining neutral. Some national leaders were making strong statements of protest - but these turned out to be only words, not backed by bullets. Where were the countries lining up to sell hundreds of high-tech missiles or tanks or planes to Iraq?
So the strange reality is that while it appears at first sight that the new fragile world order is crumbling into the dust, the opposite may be the case. Of course much depend on how Iraq instabily settles or flares, the early and "successful" withdrawal of US and other foreign troops, life for the Iraqi people post-withdrawal, and the impact on the region as a whole.
The current tensions and conflicts may well fuel further waves of terrorism, especially if the US fails to take a powerful lead, together with international support, to help establish a “just” Middle East peace settlement for both Palestinians and Israelis. It may also lead to destabilising regime changes in other Arab nations, replacing family dynasties with anti-American Islamic fundamentalism in countries like Saudi Arabia. But the current spats are unlikely to lead to destruction of the UN, nor the break up of the EU, nor the rapid neutering of American power - quite the opposite.
The world is far more united than words suggest
The truth is that most nations of the world united in condemnation of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, and again in imposing sanctions of many kinds over more than a decade since. They united again post-9/11 in a coalition against terror and more recently in insisting that UN-monitored disarmament took place.
When it came to discussions about weapons inspections and the threat of armed intervention, disagreement was almost entirely over process rather than substance: how disarmament should be achieved, measured, monitored and if necessary imposed, and over what timescale? At what point should the international community conclude that all alternatives to armed intervention have been exhausted? What form should military intervention take under such circumstances? How should it be led and financed? How should the peace be kept, reconstruction proceed and national autonomy be re-established?
Our memories are short. The level of multinational consensus about the need if necessary to intervene in the affairs of rogue states is extraordinary and unusual in world history.
That is why there is such a consensus about Iran now amongst France, Germany, Russia, UK, US, China, India and many other less powerful nations about the need for the international community to act by force if necessary, if Iran continues despite many warnings with an active programme to rapidly develop nuclear warheads.
And so we return to the global village – or rather the global nation of all humanity.
Economically, the world is already operating as a single closely inter-related organism. The problem is that mechanisms for governance, law and order are still primitive – feudal or medieval in nature. We have yet to grow up.
So we have “cities” in the global nation behaving like little kingdoms, taking the law into their own hands whenever it suits them (Russia and America), while at other times appealing to the “government” to impose common will on others.
What of the future? Life after the Iraq war will never be the same
Expect the world-wide love-hate relationship with America to become even more polarised, on the one hand hungrily devouring American media culture, on the other hand increasingly bitter and resentful at American power and lack of sensitivity to how the rest of the world works.
Expect new generations of terrorists to take courage and exact “revenge”, with the aim of “wounding American pride and arrogance”. Every one of them will tell you they are fighting for a higher moral cause.
Expect America to continue to feel deeply hurt, increasingly isolated and angry, the target of frequent terror attacks and general animosity in many places, acting forcefully around the world wherever it feels national interests dictate, and withdrawing to lick its wounds when it does not.
Expect America to be increasingly hostile to the idea of submitting in any respect whatsoever to the will of the global majority, whether on the environment, trade agreements or any other matter, and to be in even less mood to compromise than pre-Iraq War. Expect the US at the same time to make intensive diplomatic efforts to try to win back lost friends, but with ever-deepening suspicion of UN controls, inefficiency, corruption and influence.
In contrast, expect almost the entire rest of the world to invest intensively in the UN as the sole vehicle for solving complex international issues, in a quest to create a more sustainable and peaceful future.
Expect the EU to forge ahead with renewed energy to create structures to balance US power economically and militarily. But the EU will be severely restrained by ongoing internal conflicts, which will be made worse by every new country joining, as well as by unfolding events. Expect the UK to be frozen out of significant decisions by France and Germany who will seize every chance to dominate the future of the EU together, and to humiliate the US. Expect UK doubts to grow about whether it will ever sit comfortably within a Franco-German led federation of EU states. Expect France and Germany to be increasingly worried about rapid enlargement, and dilution of their power by pro-US nations with shaky economies, arguing passionately that the world will be a better place if there is a significant European counter-balance to the US.
Expect several non-European nations to embark on dangerous military adventures, arguing that the US has set a new model for them to copy: “legally” invading other countries when they could possibly be a future threat. India and Pakistan, North and South Korea and so on. These local wars could produce huge problems for the future stability of the world. Expect concerns about this to lead to calls for stronger structures and processes within the UN.
Reforming the UN as a more democratic global authority
A key challenge will be to reform the UN so that it can become more effective and fair as a federation of nations. The current powers of veto are anti-democratic and smack of nineteenth tyranny, held as they are by very few supremely powerful, wealthy nations,
The UN will only carry true global moral authority when each nation is able to cast votes in proportion to it’s contribution to global population, so that each citizen is represented equally without fear or favour. But this is an unthinkable prospect.
Even an idea of such a global assembly will provoke huge reactions in wealthy nations, because it strikes to the root of the most important unsolved problem on the planet today: the fact that most people are extremely poor, with no voice and no vote in world affairs, living off less than $2 a day.
Why global democracy is so unpopular
And so we find an interesting fact: those who live in democratic nations, who uphold democracy as the only honourable form of government, are not really true democrats after all. They have little or no interest in global democracy, in a nation of nations, in seeking the common good of the whole of humanity.
And it is this single fact, more than any other, this inequality of wealth and privilege in our shrinking global village, that will make it more likely that our future is dominate by terror groups, freedom fighters, justice-seekers, hell-raisers, protestors and violent agitators.
The lesson of history is that tyrannies and dictatorships get overthrown, that the will of the majority eventually finds a voice and freedom.
And that is exactly what will eventually happen in our non-democratic, dysfunctional, unjust, global village.
We cannot wind back the clock
We cannot wind the clock back fifty years to a cosy world where these country by country contrasts no longer matter. CNN and Hollywood have seen to that.
On TV screens in the poorest slums on earth, millions of people see their wealthy neighbours go about their daily lives while they scrabble in the dust to find money for basic food and shelter. They have seen the truth.
The digital society created the global village and globalisation the basic rules for trading within it, but neither has taught us how to live together in such a small cultural space. This is the greatest moral challenge of our time.
In a future world where small numbers of activists will wield unimagineable power with dirty bombs, nuclear devices, chemical weapons and strange viruses, our very survival will depend on finding a way to live together in harmony, with freedom and justice for all.
And that will require further extrensions of global governance.
History may record that it took us many decades, possibly, to agree to it – but what will be the pain along the way?
January 31, 2004
The Truth About Westminster
See this online book on British political life - and how so many people with integrity can find themselves altered - corrupted even, albeit in subtle ways - by the process of government and the pressures of office. Relevant to posting below, on the battle between media and politicians, based on a morally dubious pattern which tends to polarise and exaggerate party differences, in order to try to gain added public attention or audience.
See this online book on British political life - and how so many people with integrity can find themselves altered - corrupted even, albeit in subtle ways - by the process of government and the pressures of office. Relevant to posting below, on the battle between media and politicians, based on a morally dubious pattern which tends to polarise and exaggerate party differences, in order to try to gain added public attention or audience.
Future of BBC radio, TV, online, broadcasting, audiences, social trends, news, current affairs, charter review - and commercial television - by Dr Patrick Dixon
Presentation to the BBC on the future of broadcasting, and the urgent need for reform of journalism / political debate
Presentation to the BBC on the future of broadcasting, and the urgent need for reform of journalism / political debate
The truth about Westminster, politics, the BBC and the Hutton Enquiry
In December I spoke to around 100 of the most senior people at the BBC about their future, and future of broadcasting / journalism in general.
There is a huge crisis of confidence in both politicians and journalists which is undermining our democratic process, with falling interest in political debate, manifestos or election voting.
A primary reason is that most people believe that politicians are insincere, and that journalists exaggerate to make a story.
In my own experience of the media (audience reach over 200 million in the last 12 months on various interviews - see medialog) there is constant pressure to fill papers and programmes, because or a lack of enough real news.
The gap is filled by debate and conflict between individuals. However there is not enough of that either, so it is often hyped or even invented.
I have lost track of the number of times over the years I have been phoned to appear on a TV or radio programme, and it has been made absolutely clear that they are looking for highly coloured views. If they think that one's views are likely to reflect those of the middle majority, they are keen to proceed if it a general comment piece, but if it is a debate they tend to drop the idea of an interview with me and start pumping me for the phone numbers of people who have a more extreme position (it makes better TV).
Frequently I have found myself in a one-to-one interview being invited on-air to criticise what someone else has said in a previous interview. On many occaisions that person's own words are re-positioned to give a superficial characture of their actual position. I know for a fact that has also happened immediately after I have left a studio.
It also happens in the press. A journalist trying to stir up a fight may phone to suggest that an individual I know has said a particular thing, sharply critical of what I am saying on an issue. A time to take care. A quick call to the person concerned or a reading of their own press release often makes it abundantly clear that their own position has been deliberately distorted.
The truth is that most people agree on most things in most Western countries and this is especially true in the UK.
Most politicians also agree on most things.
Tony Blair and Michael Howard agree in private on most things. That is an inescapable fact. We know that whoever was in power over the next three years, very little would actually change.
The truth is that ministers try to do their best, but have very limited influence. Their job is difficult and complex: they are also very dependent on advice they receive (which can be wrong). Many decisions are dictated by Brussels, much of the rest is decentralised. Yet other decisions were inherited by a previous government. Most other parts of traditional government have been privatised. What little that remains is run by a civil service that endures from one government to another, comprising of (in the main) experienced and competent people who maintain stability and continuity through all the fads and fashions of political policy experiments.
New governments very rarely reverse legislation when they get into power - however bitterly at the time they have pretended to be opposed.
There is a collusion between politicians and the media, both of which have a strong interest in exaggerating differences. For the media it makes interesting copy (they think) or rivetting viewing (they hope). For politicians it gives them exposure and (they fantasise) makes people see them as different from the other side so they win support.
This offensive and melodramatic drama is played out every day in the public media theatre.
It looks awful, is very tedious and boring, invites ridicule and cynicism, damages broadcasters and politicians alike, destroys ratings, contributes to the decline in audiences for current affairs and news programmes, makes a rising generation disinclined to enter politics at all.
After all the virulent criticism of Lord Hutton, the BBC has on opportunity to lead our nation in a more mature political debate.
The BBC, along with all news outlets, must learn to tell the truth - and force politicians to admit the reality.
The truth is that in Select Committees different parties work very happily and harmoniously together for the good of the nation. That MPS seem to undergo a personality refit when elevated to the House of Lords, leaving the infantile rough and tumble of party-poltiical posturing in the dustbin where it belongs. That most MPs have very good friends in the other parties. That many MPs agree more with MPs in other parties over a number of issues than they do with their own leadership. That there is overhwelming agreement on the fundamentals about how the economy should be managed, the need for social welfare as well as vibrant free-market economy which is friendly to business, a cautious view of entry to the Euro-zone, and so on.
The alternative is to continue with the current madness, which is such a distortion of reality. Failure to bring a culture change will result in further destruction of public confidence in both politicians and the media, and will risk further misjudgments such as that which led to the Hutton enquiry.
In December I spoke to around 100 of the most senior people at the BBC about their future, and future of broadcasting / journalism in general.
There is a huge crisis of confidence in both politicians and journalists which is undermining our democratic process, with falling interest in political debate, manifestos or election voting.
A primary reason is that most people believe that politicians are insincere, and that journalists exaggerate to make a story.
In my own experience of the media (audience reach over 200 million in the last 12 months on various interviews - see medialog) there is constant pressure to fill papers and programmes, because or a lack of enough real news.
The gap is filled by debate and conflict between individuals. However there is not enough of that either, so it is often hyped or even invented.
I have lost track of the number of times over the years I have been phoned to appear on a TV or radio programme, and it has been made absolutely clear that they are looking for highly coloured views. If they think that one's views are likely to reflect those of the middle majority, they are keen to proceed if it a general comment piece, but if it is a debate they tend to drop the idea of an interview with me and start pumping me for the phone numbers of people who have a more extreme position (it makes better TV).
Frequently I have found myself in a one-to-one interview being invited on-air to criticise what someone else has said in a previous interview. On many occaisions that person's own words are re-positioned to give a superficial characture of their actual position. I know for a fact that has also happened immediately after I have left a studio.
It also happens in the press. A journalist trying to stir up a fight may phone to suggest that an individual I know has said a particular thing, sharply critical of what I am saying on an issue. A time to take care. A quick call to the person concerned or a reading of their own press release often makes it abundantly clear that their own position has been deliberately distorted.
The truth is that most people agree on most things in most Western countries and this is especially true in the UK.
Most politicians also agree on most things.
Tony Blair and Michael Howard agree in private on most things. That is an inescapable fact. We know that whoever was in power over the next three years, very little would actually change.
The truth is that ministers try to do their best, but have very limited influence. Their job is difficult and complex: they are also very dependent on advice they receive (which can be wrong). Many decisions are dictated by Brussels, much of the rest is decentralised. Yet other decisions were inherited by a previous government. Most other parts of traditional government have been privatised. What little that remains is run by a civil service that endures from one government to another, comprising of (in the main) experienced and competent people who maintain stability and continuity through all the fads and fashions of political policy experiments.
New governments very rarely reverse legislation when they get into power - however bitterly at the time they have pretended to be opposed.
There is a collusion between politicians and the media, both of which have a strong interest in exaggerating differences. For the media it makes interesting copy (they think) or rivetting viewing (they hope). For politicians it gives them exposure and (they fantasise) makes people see them as different from the other side so they win support.
This offensive and melodramatic drama is played out every day in the public media theatre.
It looks awful, is very tedious and boring, invites ridicule and cynicism, damages broadcasters and politicians alike, destroys ratings, contributes to the decline in audiences for current affairs and news programmes, makes a rising generation disinclined to enter politics at all.
After all the virulent criticism of Lord Hutton, the BBC has on opportunity to lead our nation in a more mature political debate.
The BBC, along with all news outlets, must learn to tell the truth - and force politicians to admit the reality.
The truth is that in Select Committees different parties work very happily and harmoniously together for the good of the nation. That MPS seem to undergo a personality refit when elevated to the House of Lords, leaving the infantile rough and tumble of party-poltiical posturing in the dustbin where it belongs. That most MPs have very good friends in the other parties. That many MPs agree more with MPs in other parties over a number of issues than they do with their own leadership. That there is overhwelming agreement on the fundamentals about how the economy should be managed, the need for social welfare as well as vibrant free-market economy which is friendly to business, a cautious view of entry to the Euro-zone, and so on.
The alternative is to continue with the current madness, which is such a distortion of reality. Failure to bring a culture change will result in further destruction of public confidence in both politicians and the media, and will risk further misjudgments such as that which led to the Hutton enquiry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)