A Global Community?

When asked, I wonder just how many people would agree that we are citizens of a global community? Do we even believe that there is a global community to be part of? It is safe to say that enclosed by the limits of human space travel (!); the earth is a collection of countries, races and cultures that are undeniably forced to inhabit the same rock together. But I find it difficult to conceive that we survive bound as one ‘community’ in the true sense of the word.

For instance, the western European countries and MEDCs commonly join collectively to form an alliance of rich industrialised states, immediately distancing the less rich countries. This is often for trade purposes, but equally in commerce, the western world is the bully. Many poor African nations, especially Zambia and The Democratic Republic of Congo are forced to plant cash crops of vegetables and fruit to sell almost entirely to our supermarkets. Whilst these countries are in dire economic condition, the oversized Trans-National Corporations cash in, content to encourage and exploit this source of dirt-cheap produce. These farmers can’t afford to cultivate crops to sustain their own population, so they have no choice but to serve the table of the MEDC gluttons. To me, this does not depict a correctly functioning community – a select few with all, and a depressed majority with nothing.

But the segregation does not stop at the economy: a huge obstacle preventing friendly relations between different lands is politics. The one institution designed to engineer and promote trust often creates more suspicions than it can resolve. Personal grudges, bias and feuds of individuals can ruin the mutual reverence held between different states. Most notably there seems to be unrest between the Hussein family of Iraq and the Bush family of America over two generations. Yet the plight of the famine stricken continent of Africa and parts of Asia take a back seat to the aforementioned dispute. Even the Eurovision song contest, not even remotely related to politicians cannot evade disruption – the reciprocated voting of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia was suspect to the British commentators at least! After France refused to support the USA’s invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration placed an embargo on French imports into the country. How rattle-out-of-the-pram is that?! Some countries, such as North Korea are closed – they deliberately resist diplomacy, but are quick to interact when they are threatened or in crisis. The Ryongchon rail disaster clearly demonstrated this, but when the difficulties are declared over by Kim Jong-il, it is likely the doors to North Korea will be sharply slammed shut once again, as they were following the 1998 famine.

And then there’s another obstruction: terrorism. It’s a kind of politics; only the diplomat visits with weapons and bomb-making instructions. This is the only opponent to the worldwide neighbourhood that is not a straightforwardly distinguishable organisation. But very potently organised it is. It is difficult to understand why at any time there would be any motive powerful enough to completely reject a country; an ethical group; a culture; a religion; or even the whole world. Whether they intended it or not, when declaring the ‘War on Terrorism’, the west immediately isolated Muslim countries as enemies.

But still there is hope. There is really only one place where a great unification of nations can occur: the world of sport. Now that is a community in itself. The successions of World Cups and Olympics has been the only way of bringing together different countries in spite of tertiary factors which might threaten friendly associations - often they aid morally correct relations. Most recently, after decades of conflict over the Kashmir region land-locked between these enormous states, India and Pakistan have finally been back on acceptable terms, partly due to the first cricket test match tour of the Islamic country by India for over 14 years. It is hoped that this gesture of friendship will act as a catalyst for peace negotiations. Famously, the ‘Black Power’ Olympics of 1968 allowed Tommie Smith and John Carlos, the American 200 metre sprinters to stand on the Gold and Bronze podium places respectively after their success in that event. This provided the stage for their symbolic civil rights gestures: the world saw Smiths’ right gloved fist held aloft to represent black power; Carlos’ left held similarly to show unity; a black scarf to illustrate black pride; and the removal of their shoes to show black poverty. 5 years following Martin Luther King’s ‘I have a dream’ speech, the black civil rights movement was still a hot topic. Jesse Owens, the black American athlete single-handedly humiliated Hitler’s exhibition of ‘Aryan’ physical supremacy in the 1936 Berlin Olympics after winning 4 gold medals.

But with worthwhile advances there is often the other side to politics – foreign policy and personal reservations again playing their parts. The English Cricket Board is in continuous debate over the forthcoming tour to Zimbabwe, and whether it is right to visit Robert Mugabe’s crippled country. Furthermore, there are concerns over the 2004 Athens Olympics – firstly, that it may not even be built in time, and secondly, more doubts on the security of the event against terrorist activity. Only 100 days before the games are due to start, 3 bombs have exploded in the centre of the Greek capital. No one was seriously hurt, but nobody has claimed responsibility for planting the devices, which adds to the worries of the countries that have threatened to pull out. All this seems to be building apprehensions quicker than stadiums... What to do?

Unjustly, the eyes of the mass media habitually overlook much of the work done by non-political organisations, such as Oxfam, for the improvement of the welfare of people, regardless of their ethnicity. Following Band Aid in 1985, the focus of attention to famine stricken nations is old news, and just doesn’t sell papers or attract viewers any more. It is appalling that it took a rock concert to inform the world of the problems of Ethiopia in particular. If the media were a truly effective force it would focus less on ‘celebrities’ and more on the issues that are cutting lives short and bringing suffering to the world that need to be addressed. There is always room entertainment, but it seems that sometimes there is an aspect of tunnel vision brought on by the pockets of current affairs editors and reporters. This imbalance prevents these events from coming to the public eye.

So, can the world be described as a community? The globe is an environment where everyone has to survive together, and many people do get along, but all the same there is much conflict. But like any community, there is bound to be problems. For it to work, just like any other neighbourhood, it requires respect, concern and tolerance and maybe these qualities are what everyone in this international society is lacking.

What are your views on this topic?