7 February, 2006

Muhammad cartoon row

A newspaper in a small European country published caricatures last September. But they triggered a serious international problem. Who could thought?

» BBC News | Danish embassy in Beirut torched

The cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, published in Denmark, caused anger among Muslim countries. Lebanese demonstrators set the Danish embassy in Beirut on fire in protest against the cartoons a day after Syrians' attack on the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus on Saturday.

Having Norwegian friends, it is very hard to see their national flags be burned. And such scenes overlap with the anti-Japanese protests in China that happened last April.

» BBC News | Muslim anger at Danish cartoons

The row was caused by a set of twelve caricatures of Muhammad made by Danish Jyllands-Posten in last September. The set of the cartoons was titled "What's Muhammad's face like?", saying "a writer complained that nobody dared illustrate his book about Muhammad." However, the ambassadors of Arab countries, Pakistan, Iran, Bosnia-Hercegovina and Indonesia, saw them very offeisive and pressed for the apology of the Danish prime minister.

The situation was further aggravated after a Norwegian publication reprinted the cartoons, followed by the newspapers of France, Germany, Italy and Spain, which also decided the reprint to claim "Freedom of expression".

There is an ideological confrontation between two sides behind this issue - Europeans, who believe in "freedom of expression" and therefore gorvenments should not interfere in the media, while Muslims just cannot accept the depiction of Muhammad whatever European media say.

This issue seems to underline "freedom of expression versus religious offence" between two. But Europe's theory, "freedom of expression", appears unconvincing to me.

Having studied journalism in the UK, I believe that journalism should have an aim, sometimes obligation, to report news. And for that, "freedom of expression" should be protected and be based on journalistic activities.

Then, here is my question. What did Jyllands-Posten want to say through the cartoons? It is strictly prohibited to depict Muhammad in the Muslim rule. The paper could have expected what would happen if they publish the cartoons, and in fact, they were offensive (one of twelve cartoons depicts Muhammad as a stereotypical fundamentalist like Osama Bin Laden). So what did they want to tell us taking such risks? "Freedom of expression" is important for journalism, but at the same time, means to be accompanied by responsibilities.

Moreover, I am very sceptical about the European followers' decision. There is an anti-Muslim sentiment among Europeans, who fears an growing number of immigrants. And such a confrontation is coming to the surface like we saw in the riots in Franc last November. If the immigrant issue and anti-Muslim feeling were their motive for reprinting the cartoons, "freedom of expression" that they are claiming is very superficial.

However, what is currently happening in Arabic countries is not acceptable and justified. Violence leads us nowhere. The series of violent reactions across the Muslim nations can easily give an stereotyped image to those who watch the news, especially Europeans who support their "theory".

The cartoons can be seen at The Brussels Journal or Wikipedia.

10 November, 2005

La Rage

This entry is written by my boss. He cannot help expressing anger over the French government. Here is France's riot story.

***

The violence began as Bouna Traore (15), and Zyed Benna (17) from Clichy-sou-Bois, were accidentaly killed in an electricity substation while fleeing from police on the night of Oct 27. The increasing unrest now enters its 15th night, and is spreading across the nation.

A crime offensive had just been launched a month prior, by Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy. The intention was to provide "cleansing" of the problematic suburbs of Paris by depolying the infamous CRS, the specially trained French riot police who have "cart blanche" to arrest and assault anyone considered suspicious.

It is quite apparent now that the heavy handed police have only made things worse.

Areas such as Clichy-sous-Bois lack education, jobs, and welfare. Unemployment reaches up to 25%. It is an established fact that the youths from such areas (referred to as "scum" by Mr. Sarkozy) face tough discrimination from the French society (which proclaims it's ideals to be "Freedom, Equality, and Brotherhood"), making it difficult for them to find descent work or housing.

The problem roots deep, as France fails to keep its promise of a stable economy to the African immigrants invited over 3 decades ago. The government of this now ethnically rich nation parks many of these immigrants in the poorest subururban slums, and hides them from the white French society.

Now the children of these immigrants, born into this neglected situation, are asking for dignity and treatment as human beings, setting cities ablaze again tonight, just to be heard and just to be seen.

***

He suggests me to watch this DVD, LA HAINE.

23 September, 2005

No winner: German inconclusive election

Since the election took place and the result turned out to be a disaster on Sunday, I've been trying to write about this.

Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats (CDU) won Sunday's election by three seats, however the margin was too slim for them to be the gorvernment alone. Moreover, having faced this situation Gerhard Schroeder of the Social Democrats (SPD) claims to be a chancellor.

CDU's Merkel hold her first talk with SPD's Schroeder on Thursday. But the talk ended up without any progress. She pointed out "clear differences" between two parties. On the other hand, SPD chairman Franz Muentefering said his party was keen to have more detailed talks with the CDU, but he stressed again that Schroeder should remain chancellor.

It is said that a CDU-SPD "grand coalition" is still regarded as a likely outcome to the crisis - but the talks could take weeks. They are going to have another talk next Wednesday.

There are some other possible coalition plans. One is that the CDU forms a coalition government with the liberal Free Democrats (FDP) and the Greens.

Although the FDP, who came third, are traditional allies of the conservative CDU, the Greens worked with SPD. Moreover, there is a gap between the CDU and the Greens in policy in respect of environmental issues and others. Both the FDP and Greens have said they are unlikely to switch allegiances.

BBC News describes this like the following:

The CDU and SPD have been trying to woo smaller potential partners.

If no deal is reached, another election may have to be held - probably in 2006. A prolonged deadlock is thought to damage the German economy.

29 June, 2005

Nordic paternity leave schemes

» BBC News | Quality time thrills Nordic dads
28 June 2005

Last year, nearly all Icelandic fathers used their entitlement to three months off work on 80% of their salary.

The new paternity law came into effect in 2002. Iceland now has Europe's second highest birth rate after Turkey.

More Danish men are taking paternity leave now - 46,000 in 2004. New parents can share a year of paid leave there.

Icelandic parents can take nine months of paid leave for childcare - three for the mother, three for the father and the rest divided up by couples as they see fit.

Well, this kind of progressive approach by the government is never seen in Japan, which is unfortunately controlled by inefficient bureaucrats. However, Japanese dads need quality time with their kids, too.

20 June, 2005

Going nowhere: Anglo-French battle over the EU budget

» BBC News | Analysis: Two visions for Europe
18 June 2005
By Stephen Mulvey

After France and the Netherlands said No on the EU's constitution, Europe met with another obstacle - budget.

The leaders of each EU members met in Brussels on 16 and 17 June. But the summit ended up with not reaching agreement on a framework budget for 2007-2013.

There are - I think I don't need to explain these here in my poor English, but let me do so in order to satisfy myself and help my understanding - two points. One is the UK rebate, which the country started to recieve from 1984 when it was one of the third poorest countries in the European Community. And the other is Common Agricultural Policy of the EU, which especially French farmers benefit from.

And the debates are going nowhere, but at the same time highlighting the battle between the UK and France, which involves other EU members.

******

Here are some quotes which illustrate diplomatic rifts among the EU.

» BBC News | Blair vows firm line in EU battle
13 June 2005
» BBC News | UK insists EU rebate is justified
19 May 2005

Mr Blair said during a visit to Moscow on 13 June; "I will be, as is my way, diplomatic but firm."

Tony Blair's spokesman said: "The rebate is fully justified, full stop."

And Blair said the British rebate could not be discussed unless it was alongside debate on all EU financing "including that 40% of the budget goes on agriculture which employs only 5% of the people".

On the other hand, Catherine Colonna, French European Affairs Minister, made it clear there was no room for negotiation over the lucrative farm deal, saying the CAP had been reformed in 2002 and did not need to be re-examined.

And she says; "the British position on the rebate defies EU logic and undermines EU solidarity."

Blair pointed that more than 40 per cent of the EU's budget is spent on agriculture, while only five per cent of its population are farmers.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said it would "not be possible" to achieve a deal on a new EU budget without a UK concession.

Sir Digby Jones, director-general of the onfederation of British Industry, says; "if the reform is not linked to ending European agricultural subsidies, it's blatant hypocrisy."

******

» The Observer | Blair vows to break up CAP for Africa's sake
19 June 2005
By Heather Stewart and Nick Mathiason

In this context, I support Blair, although I don't know what's behind his remark and it can be part of his diplomatic tactics.

******

This summary gives you an explanation on this issue;
» BBC News | Q&A: EU budget rows

******

And the cartoon is from here;
» The Observer blog | Hands up if you *don't* think European agricultural subsidies need reforming
13 June 2005
By Rafael Behr

Whenever I see this kind of caricature, I admire a person who creates it. Needless to say, this describes the situation very well.

29 April, 2005

EU sugar regime ruled illegal

» BBC News | EU loses WTO plea on sugar aid
Last night, finally the WTO ruled that the EU's subsidies to sugar was illegal. As a result, the EU is to stop illegally dumping subsidised sugar on global markets.

The EU's subsidies to sugar producers in Europe has been labelled as the cause of poverty among sugar farmers in developing countries and criticised by NGOs such as Oxfam.

The reason why I'm enthusiastic about writing on this subject is because I studied it for my dissertation.

It was the end of August when I finished writing the dissertation. The WTO similarly ruled that the EU sugar regime was unfair. But Oxfam claimed that Europe's proposed reforms were not drastic enough.

And this time. Having had complaints from three strong sugar-producing countries - Brazil, Australia and Thailand, the WTO issued a final ruling against the EU sugar policy. What is written in latest related articles seems, to me, the same as what is written in ones of last year's August, but this time the situation appears to be different.

However, there are things to be cleared and done. The New York Times says;

Still, it is unclear how the European Union will respond to the ruling.

Oxfam warns;

If the EU (...) didn't implement sugar (...) in good faith, this could jeopardize the entire round of WTO trade talks.

The EU's reform proposals are expected in early July 2005.

By the WTO's decision, the EU has been given 15 months to reform its sugar regime. In fact, Brazil, Thailand and Australia claimed a 90-day deadline to comply, but the WTO rejected their call.

Is this really the end of the EU's unfair sugar regime? Even if this really happens, there is a long way to go for developing countries.

Many people, including me, wish to see good faith practised by the rich countries.

Here is also my photographs.
» auspicious version 2 | Photographs: Sugar Story

And links of related articles.
» Guardian Unlimited | European sugar subsidies ruled illegal
» The New York Times | Europe Loses Sugar Appeal at W.T.O.
» Oxfam | Press Release | WTO ruling on EU sugar subsidies must trigger serious reform, say Oxfam and WWF

29 April, 2005

Sugar subsidies

The WTO has ruled against the EU sugar regime. Victory for sugarcane producers. More info coming soon.

7 April, 2005

New home for Mona Lisa

» BBC News | Mona Lisa gains new Louvre home
By the way, where is Munch's stolen Scream?

6 April, 2005

Mourning the Pope

» BBC News | Pope John Paul II dies in Vatican
Pope John Paul II, the third longest-serving pontiff in history, died in his apartment at the Vatican on Saturday. He was at the age of 84.

When I watched BBC News, a reporter discribed him;

John Paul is the first global pope, and he is also the first pope who died in the globalised world.

The New York Times has created special sections for John Paul. Click "The Life of Pope John Paul II" and "The Next Pope" in "Interactive Feature". You can see selected pictures.

» The New York Times | Multimedia