The Ripple Online » Features

Fairtrade: Why Bother?

Emma Howard — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:13:38 +0000

You put your coppers in the tin. You tune into Comic Relief. On a good day, you might even stop for the man on the street that you would normally pretend you didn’t see. Haven’t you done your bit for charity? Perhaps you have. In fact, I’ll quite happily make the assumption that you’re as charitable as the next person. Well done you. Now go away and leave me to enjoy my coffee in peace.

But that is exactly why I’m afraid I cannot. Consumer society is everywhere: from the gold ring on your finger to the shirt on your back to the cup of coffee you sip innocently as you peruse this paper. Everything has its price and everything is produced.

That coffee is part of a long production line of which you are the final and most important link. You demanded its production. At the other end of the line is a lady who breaks her back working stupidly long hours for a return that won’t even fund the cost of producing the coffee beans in the first place. Seems ridiculous, doesn’t it? So ridiculous in fact, that we can’t actually get to grips with the idea. Sadly, this makes it all the more easy to push it to the back of your mind or dismiss it under the pretence that there is nothing you can do about the fact the world is so unfair.

But imagine that this production line takes place under the one roof, in the same factory perhaps. You probably know the lady at the start of it. You might even be friends. Her tired face however, becomes blurred by those of the middlemen in between. The line of millers, baggers, traders and transporters quite nicely cushions the blow to the conscience.

You can try and justify it. Fairtrade products simply don’t taste as good or have the same quality that you’re accustomed to. Actually, the opposite is true because when you think about it, it makes sense. Short cuts get taken. Lower prices mean lower quality.

You can’t afford it. Now let’s be honest here. You probably wouldn’t even notice the extra penny. Yet switching to Fairtrade won’t even cost you that. The price is less than a penny a cup. Not even a copper that would probably only end up in the charity tin anyway. The irony is that you would be much better off (and you aren’t the only one) spending it on the product in the first place.

Fairtrade is not charity; quite the opposite. You are asking for the charity of the lady at the other end of the line to subsidize the price of your cup of coffee. She is one of the poorest people on the planet. You can more than afford it.

Now this might not be particularly nice to read. I’m sure there are plenty more articles in the paper that will make a much more comforting read. I leave the choice to you. I won’t pester you on the street. I won’t ask you to stand with a placard outside Downing Street. I won’t even ask you for your coppers. Because I’m not asking you for charity. I’m asking you for justice. You probably won’t even notice the difference. But you can be damn sure that someone will.

Emma Howard

Paul Newman (1925-2008)

Esther — Mon, 25 May 2009 15:54:14 +0000

Paul Leonard Newman, born January 26th 1925 in Ohio, was an Academy Award winning actor, director, racing enthusiast and philanthropist. Newman showed an avid interest in theatre from a young age, his first role being the Court Jester in his school’s adaptation of Robin Hood, aged seven years old. As a young man, Newman served in the naval reserves in World War II, in the Pacific theatre. After being unable to train as a pilot due to being colour blind, he qualified as a radioman and gunner for torpedo bombers. After the war, Newman studied drama at Yale University and the Actor’s Studio in New York. His training enabled him to hone his natural thespian talents, subsequently leaving for Hollywood to begin his storied cinematic career. A world-renowned actor, Newman was nominated for seven Academy Awards during the course of his distinguished career, including a successful nomination for The Colour of Money, a 1986 film directed by Martin Scorcese. His other most notable films include The Hustler (1961), Cool Hand Luke (1967), Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969), and more recently, Road to Perdition (2002). However, his talents were not confined to the world of acting. He was a keen automobileracing aficionado, winning several national championships whilst competing in the Sports Car Club of America during the 1970s. In 1979, he competed in the legendary 24 hours of Le Mans race, an endurance race for sports cars held in Sarthe, France, in which he finished in 2nd place. In 1982, Newman, along with the writer A.E Hotchner, founded Newman’s Own, a line of food products, based upon the principle that all proceeds, after tax deductions, would be donated to charitable causes. As of May 2008, these donations were calculated to be in excess of $220 million (US). Beneficiaries have included the Hole in the Wall Gang Camp, a residential camp for seriously ill children (originally co-founded by Newman himself) and Catholic Relief Services, an international humanitarian aid agency, providing help to the developing world in emergency situations. In June 2008, the American press reported that Newman had been diagnosed with lung cancer. There were several sightings of him looking gaunt and uncharacteristically worse for wear. In August, Newman finished his course of palliative chemotherapy to return home to Connecticut, so he could spend his final days surrounded by family and friends. On September 26th, aged 83, Newman passed away, leaving behind a legacy unlike any other. A critically acclaimed actor, successful racing driver, philanthropist and devoted husband and father, Newman epitomised the term ‘Renaissance Man.’ He will be remembered for many years, and will be sorely missed.

Sam Tromans

Glorious Revolution or a blood red nightmare?

Esther — Mon, 25 May 2009 15:43:51 +0000

This month marks the 91st anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution, possibly the most important turning point in modern Russian history. The events of October 1917 and the subsequent episodes which followed, twist and turn their way through the politics, economics and social structures of the twentieth century, underlying the modern history of Europe, if not the entire world. Russia in 1917 was a country whose people had had enough. Compared with the most powerful nations of the day economically, politically and industrially she was completely backwards. The political system was dated. The vast country was ruled by an Emperor, or Tsar, who had lost touch with the needs of his people. The economy relied heavily on agriculture maintained largely by starving peasants who by 1917 had been crushed and depressed by three years of bloody war. The saving grace was Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, the leader of the communist Bolshevik party. Having been exiled along with other left-wing Russians Lenin had lived in Britain where he continued to adopt and improve his thoughts and his doctrine until it was time for him to return, stronger, with enough supporters to rise up in glorious revolution, destroying aristocracy and the bourgeoisie to install Soviet Socialism and ultimately free the desperate people of the former Russian empire. The notion or idea of Lenin and his followers leading a group of desperate people into a struggle for freedom, winning their right to life, overthrowing the evil which had plagued their lives is an incredibly romantic one. The magnitude of emotion involved in such an event must have been tremendous. We look back on the October Revolution objectively as the events happened so long ago and seemingly so far away. The story of the revolution has been wrapped up in almost a century of history. Sometimes it is hard to imagine something like this actually happening, as the events seem akin to a story, which is why I believe the image of the revolution is so easy to glorify or romanticise. However, after contemplating it, perhaps to romanticise the October Revolution is really a rather terrible thing to do. It is easy for us to do so. The fact remains that the revolution was filled with bloody violence. Lives were lost in the days of the revolution and thousands more died in the five years of civil war that came afterwards. Perhaps the fight for freedom is a strong enough reason for us to be able to glorify the revolution regardless of the suffering. However, the ‘freedom’ the revolutionaries won was manipulated and stolen from the people and in reality the peoples’ Union of Soviet Socialist Republics became a tyrannical nightmare filled with terror, paranoia and corruption. Something I have always disliked about studying the past is the way in which epic events are brushed over merely as an aspect of our education. In many such instances there was suffering on a scale unimaginable to those of us lucky enough to live in this life. Feeling a shiver up one’s spine when we learn of mind blowing actions such as the 1917 revolution is brilliant, a faith in humanity, but we must also spare a thought for those whose stories were not so romantic.

Alastair Jack

63 Years of Unity, Peace and Freedom?

Esther — Mon, 25 May 2009 15:38:50 +0000

At the end of World War II, on October 24th, representatives from 50 countries met to agree on a code of conduct that promotes peace among nations. They stablished the United Nations, aiming to maintain international peace and security, promote human rights, and solving international humanitarian problems. The UN has 192 Member Countries in the General Assembly, 15 of which are Security Council members that set agendas. The Security Council has five permanent members – the US, China, France, Russia, and the UK, each with a power to veto any proposal and adversely or strategically affect them or their allies, potentially undermining the UN’s objectives. The Council also has 10 non-permanent members that are periodically elected by all Member States for a two-year term. The UN has a long and mixed record of peacekeeping success. For example, it stood idle in Rwanda while 800,000 people were slaughtered. However, UN peacekeepers in Kashmir have tried keeping the peace between the nuclear powers of India and Pakistan since 1949. In Cyprus, the UN has for decades kept the peace between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. Some nations such as Brazil and India have made calls to reform the UN Security Council, especially the makeup of Permanent Members. They claim the Security Council largely reflects the power structure of a world immediately following World War II, when many countries were undeveloped, and that current permanent members do not want to share or give away their power of veto. For example, although Latin America hosts a 570 million population, none of its countries has a permanent presence on the Security Council. Brazil, the continent’s largest country in terms of population, received backing as a Permanent Member, though without a veto power. India, the world’s largest liberal democracy with a $1.1 billion economy has had a similar issue. The UN is also successful in non-peacekeeping missions, running over 40 global agencies, the most famous of which are the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) and the World Health Organisation (WHO). These agencies operate around the world, from setting common international health standards, to promoting the peaceful use of nuclear power. In 1967 there were over 130,000 cases worldwide of the smallpox virus, but thanks to the WHO’s efforts in mass vaccinations,eradicated the virus in 1984. For all its faults, the UN has been a force for good. Though it makes mistakes like any other bureaucracy, one must remember it is a voluntary association of nations that is the most represented and recognized on Earth. Not many 63-year-old organizations can claim the same.

Nasouh Raslan

hoist the colours – pirates are on the horizon…

Esther — Mon, 25 May 2009 15:32:39 +0000

The image of a pirate has been one of freedom. Not bound by an occupation or loyalty to a particular country, the pirate could sail the seven seas safe in the knowledge that he is the master of his own destiny. This is of course a fictitious notion, romanticised by Hollywood and the loveable swagger of Johnny Depp. In truth, the life of a pirate has always been a tough one and contrary to popular belief, piracy has not faded into the horizon. Instead, modern day pirates still roam the seas, not because of freedom, but desperation.

Piracy has made international news this month, after a Ukrainian vessel, carrying 33 Russian-made tanks and heavey weapons was hijacked off the coast of Somalia near the town of Hobyo. There has been over 60 reported cases of pirate attacks within the Somali region this year, leading to the UN Security Council unanimously passing a declaration in May which authorises nations to enter the territorial waters of Somalia to apprehend pirates.

The recent hijacking of The Faina on the 25th September sparked a great deal of international response. Under the UN’s latest declaration, the EU assembled an anti-piracy security operation starting in November. According to French Defence Minister, Herve Morin, at least eight countries will be involved, claiming, ‘There is very broad European willingness’.

International interference seems to be part of the problem. Piracy has festered in the Somali region since its Civil War in the early 1990s. Large areas of Somalia are now autonomous regions, ruled by warlords. Commercial fishing has impacted the lively-hood of many of Somalia’s small fishing villages. Unable to compete with larger business, these fishing ports soon become pirate havens where attacks can be coordinated. The bandits
themselves have claimed that they are ‘pirates out of desperation… first by hunger and lack of government,’ and call for other countries to help put a government in place.

The hijacked Faina was quickly surrounded by US warships, ensuring that no weapons were taken off the ship. The modern age of piracy is a scary concept. The pirates will often launch speedboats from a mothership attacking vessels with heavy weaponry, including grenades and explosives.

The pirates had claimed that they would retaliate if attacked demanding a $20 million (about £11 million) ransom for the safe return of the vessel, its cargo and crew. This is not unusual, as ransoms range between $500,000 (£283,000) to $30 million (just under £17 million). Senior UN officials have estimated that pirates can earn up to $100 million (£54 million) each year from hijackings. Somali warlords have been known to hire pirates to hijack ships, splitting the ransom money. This means that powerful political figures are showing supoort for piracy, encouraging hijackings, which makes it more difficult to defeat.

The pirates of Somalia are clearly products of a developing country rife with civil war and without an authentic leadership. But why request so much ransom money? Why not request a halt in shipping? Perhaps greed and piracy are bedfellows and inseparable. It is unlikely that shipping will decrease
in the region, and about 2.4 million people in the region depend on food aid, 19 per cent of which arrives by sea. It is vital that this does not come under attack by the pirates, but the latest measures taken by Europe, the US and Russia should prevent this.

Aaron Maughan

GM SPORTSMEN

Amy — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:35:01 +0000

The recent Olympic games were a notable success for Great Britain, who placed fourth overall with 47 medals. Perhaps it is unsurprising that doping (the use of foreign substances by an athlete in order to improve their performance) has always been a problem in the competitive world of professional sports, and despite increasing the frequency of random drug tests, athletes continue to dope in full knowledge of the severe penalties should they be caught. Out of 4,500 samples taken from athletes participating at the 2008 games, six athletes tested positive and were banned from competing. With the advent of gene therapy techniques (originally developed to treat muscle wasting diseases like muscular dystrophy), it is becoming ever more likely that some athletes will experiment with gene doping, a method that is potentially harder to detect than conventional drug doping.

Under the World Anti-Doping Code, a substance is prohibited if it fulfils at least two of the following three criteria: it enhances performance, endangers health, or ‘violates the spirit of sport’. The list of banned substances is extensive, and includes steroids (used to build muscle and recover faster from training sessions), painkillers (which allow the athlete to train harder for longer before feeling the effects of muscle stress), and stimulants (which raise the heart rate and may improve performance). There are also restrictions on prescribed drugs such as corticosteroids (used to treat asthma), as well as some natural health remedies such as nutritional supplements.

Erythropoietin (EPO), a natural hormone found in the body, is widely abused in sports in order to improve aerobic performance. It acts by increasing the production of red blood cells, helping to deliver oxygen to the exercising muscles. At the moment, athletes that dope with EPO can expect only a temporary advantage over their competitors, as the glycoprotein has a short half-life and therefore requires frequent injections. If the EPO gene could be inserted into humans (it has already been successful in mice and baboons) it could potentially result in a significant and lasting increase in the expression of EPO. Another potential target is the insulin-like growth factor gene, IGF-1, which induces muscle growth when injected locally. However, not all trials have been such a success: one trial which used gene therapy for x-linked severe combined immunodeficiency disease resulted in two of the participants developing leukaemia, because the gene was inserted close to a proto-oncogene, which became activated and resulted in tumour growth and cancer.

There are of course moral and ethical concerns associated with both pharmaceutical and genetic manipulation. Athletes who fail doping tests are regarded as being cheats, and as having acted in an unsportsmanlike fashion. However, people who live at high altitudes naturally have elevated levels of EPO, which as previously discussed improves aerobic performance. So already there is a selective advantage for those living at higher elevations, and it could be argued that allowing athletes from low-lying areas to artificially increase their EPO levels would merely level the playing field. The issue of doping is clearly a complex one, and there is no simple answer as to whether testing should be even more thorough than at present, or whether the laws should be relaxed to give disadvantaged athletes a break. The development of gene therapy techniques will only exacerbate these problems, unless novel ways of testing for doping are swiftly evolved.