japanese maple

Am I old-fashioned if I don’t criticize the Chinese thriftiness, as US Treasury Secretary Paulson has done? If I agree with the part of Chinese population who regards spending heaps of money for consumerism’s sake as an “unnecessary waste” (1), do I risk appearing too leftist?

A survey conducted by HSBC and reported by Peter Wong in Time magazine shows how, inevitably, the Chinese middle-class is adapting to Western standards of spending. As Wong explains, “the emerging middle-class has become an important target market for international business keen to supply it with product and services.”

Yes, I acknowledge that consumption is a key element within the virtuous cycle of a country’s GDP growth. I’m also well aware that the soaring trade deficit with the US is a sufficient reason for American businesses to urge Chinese consumers to increase spending.

Even so, I can’t help considering the very principles of consumerism fallacious. I still find that pushing people towards buying by creating induced needs is basically wrong. I’m not so naïve as to believe that communist utopias where everybody has the same and therefore has no need to own more, is a feasible project. Nor that it works. But I am against a foolish consumerism without limits, that leads people to want more and more.

This is the dominating Western mentality being exported to the East. However, according to Wong, the Chinese middle-class is not yet as “profligate” as the American one “whose saving rate is zero.” Chinese are exposed to unbridled consumerism models, but are still “value conscious.”

Yet, I suppose it’s only a matter of time. How long will it take for the Chinese to become like us?

References
(1) Time, “Raiding the piggy bank”- March 5th 2007 (p.38)

There is something wrong with the US foreign policy. Every action America takes in foreign businesses contributes to make its relations with other countries more unstable.

A leader in Friday’s Financial Times (1) brought me back to a book review I read in the New Statesman two weeks ago. The book argued that Europeans brood over xenophobia towards the US (2). This phenomenon was harshly criticized by the author of the article and I agreed with her. However now, in the light of what I’ve read in the FT, I feel I can’t blame Europeans.

The most recent problem in the US foreign policy is its authoritarian attempt to stop Iran’s nuclear enrichment. The FT leader affirms that American policy “surrender and then we can talk” will not work. On the radio, the other day, the Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki called the US preconditions paradoxical, because to impose a precondition means “to negotiate negotiations.” He didn’t talk completely nonsense.

Furthermore, the troubled US-Iran relations are the tip of the iceberg in US foreign policy’s failure of strategy. The bossy imperialism of the Bush doctrine has led the US to quarrel with the majority of Europeans countries.

However, in its conclusions, the FT leader gives the US a chance. It says: “if the US could deal with the greater threat of the Soviet Union, surely it can talk with Teheran.” But the fallacious US policy, from Afghanistan to Iraq, put it in the wrong in other countries’ eyes. Besides Bush is not Kennedy. It seems arguable that the former is eager to favour a détente in its foreign relations, as the latter attempted to with the USSR.

References
(1) Financial Times, “Dealing with Teheran”- February 23rd 2007 (p.16)
(2) New Statesman, “Love to hate you” by Mary Fitzgerald – February 12th 2007 (p.59)

In ancient Latin the word ‘castra, castrorum’ means fortified camp. While reading last’s week New Statesman(1), I couldn’t help thinking that no other name would be more suitable to Cuban Líder máximo Fidel.

I was aware of the fact that Castro has always been a thorn in the United States’ side since he rose to power. The desire to get rid of the pugnacious Cuban leader has stayed on the US agenda for almost 50 years. Even so, I was very impressed by reading how steadily Fidel Castro has remained anchored to the island off Florida and how vain American attempts to do away with him have been.

From Kennedy to Bush, US governments have tried a thousand ways and means to bring Castro down. Anyway, “combined policies of drastic economic embargoes, political isolationism and ongoing CIA attempts to foment insurgency,” haven’t really worked.

Now the Bush administration wants to make people believe that once the Fidel era is over, Cuba will turn into something else. Something the US can easily subjugate. But, as Andrew Stephen highlights, Bush has probably counted his chickens before they have been hatched.

This means that the US president hasn’t taken into account Cubans’ interests. However statistics say that Cuba is quite well off.

Bush firmly believes that, once Castro is dead, there won’t be any “succession” of his brother Raul, who is, according to the US administration, a “dictator-in-waiting.”

Yet, US expectations might be disappointed. Cubans might choose to stay with the Castros after all. In this case, if the US refuses to cooperate with Raul, Cuba is likely to remain an impregnable fortress. A real ‘castra’ as Romans would say.

References
(1) New Statesman, “No Fidel, No Problem?” by Andrew Stephen – February 12th 2007 (p.32-34).

The stereotype of stereotypes about my country goes: “Italiano, pizza, pasta, mandolino, Mafia”. Personally I’ve never taken it badly. First, because it’s kind of funny. Secondly, because it’s well-known that cliché only touches on reality.

Even so, it’s a blow to remember that there’s an element of truth in it. And I’m not referring to the gastronomical/entertaining part. An article in last week’s The Economist reminded me that the Mafia issue in Southern Italy is still an open wound.

In regions such as Campania, Sicily, Calabria, honest people and mafiosi live and work side by side. The former in the daylight, the latter in the darkness of a criminal underworld. Sometimes they run into each other like when the Mafia broke into the workshop of Cooperativa Valle del Marro, in Gioia Tauro.

If at first sight, it seems that the Mafia rules without interference, a closer look reveals that a number of people refuse to remain idle.

Cooperativa Valle del Marro is a good example. A group of young people have gathered and seek to establish a legitimate business in Calabria with assets seized from the Mafia. Racketeers attack it because no one should defy the criminal organization’s power. Even so, the co-operative’s answer is to double the cultivated area and increase the production of olives.

Southern Italy is not only about Mafia. This might sound rhetorical but there are also brave people who challenge the Mafia’s widespread power. Racketeers try to crush any attempts of rebellion. Yet, these persist, silent and stubborn. A sort of non violent – in this case – farming struggle.

In the light of this reality, will Italian stereotype ever change to “pizza, pasta, mandolino”, and olive fields?

References
The Economist- “Taking on the mob; Business in Southern Italy”, February 3rd 2006 (p.66)

==>
Some days ago I went for a walk in my town in Italy wearing a thin jacket. It was middle January. That is full winter. Nevertheless I wasn’t cold at all, and had a nice lukewarm walk, enjoying a sun which definetely reminded me of late spring. When I came back I switched on the news and heard that an odd hurrican had hit central Europe with unprecedented strenght. We are now used to hear about massive typhoons that hit the US shores annually. Besides Florida, Lousiana and other countries in the South East are dramatically accustomed to those hurricanes that almost on a fixed basis turn on them violently and make a clean sweep of everything. But now suddenly hurricanes begin to hit Europe as well along with odd metereological phenomenons. Few doubt that climate changes are beginning to make themself felt strongly. According to several scientists the Earth hadn’t experienced such a warm winter since early 19th century. Opposite as well as frightening phenomenon occure: big glaciers are melting at an incredible speed, while several areas are threatened by incipient drought due to the reduced number of rainfalls. And I’m not talking about Africa. This latter is already done for. To get nearer Italy, for instance, is likely to become a sort of desert in its souther part. Let’s prepare to say farewell to art cities such as Venice and Florence. Indeed they might be flooded in the near future.
A documentary is being spreading into the cinemas around the world. It is called “An inconvenient truth” and it’s by “former-futur president” of the US Al Gore, as he laughingly define himself. Mr Gore aims to inform people on the state of health of the Earth, which is at least worrying. Governements are so concerned about the terroristic menace but there won’t be any terrorist to fight nor anything else once the Earth will be destroyed by human selfishness. Therefore the early we all human being realize that, the best will be for everybody. That’s the message Gore tries to launch. Although I’m aware that this documentary might be magnificent advertising expedient for a possible (even if not so probable) campaign in sight of next year presidential election, I believe Al Gore’s “An inconvinient truth” deserves a reasonable respect. It highlight simply and clearly an awful matter which, like or not, we all are goint to cope with extremely soon, and which we are already having a tasting of.
I found myself thinking of what it would have happened if Al Gore had become US president instead of George Bush. The former isn’t of course free from critics, I’m not implying that. However, I’m wondering with a few regrets whether a world where the United States with the highest emissions of greenhouse gases and no signs on the Kyoto protocol are the first contributors to the Earth pollution, wouldn’t have liked better that the president of the leading world power had at least a high dose of careness about environmental matters.