USING FAIRNESS TO FIND A SOLUTION TO THE REFUGEE CRISIS IN EUROPE – BY PHILIP PETRAGLIA (philpetraglia@gmail.com)

As events unfold in Europe with regard to the refugee crisis, we’re reminded of what it means to live in a global village. Suddenly what happens thousands of miles away from our doorsteps can no longer be conveniently ignored, whether by our politicians, or more importantly, by our conscience. Syria may be the exception to the rule, a kind of extreme situation, but what we’re seeing in Syria may one day become the norm. Finding a solution to the refugee crisis in Syria consequently becomes important not only for dealing with the current crisis, but also for handling future crises around the world as nations implode through internal conflict.

HOW THE CIVIL WAR IN SYRIA STARTED

The war in Syria started in 2011. It’s called, technically speaking, a civil war but like civil wars in the future it has taken on an international dimension as regional powers support one side over the other. Syria has a population (or had) of 18 million but is divided by ethnicity and religion. A full 60% of its population is comprised of Sunni Arabs, while Alawites, a branch of the Shia faith, make up 12%. Christian Arabs, Armenians, Druses, Kurds, Turkmen, & other minorities make up the rest.

Syria is in a rough neighbourhood. It borders Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel. A French possession for many decades, Syria gained its independence from France in 1945 and has been ruled under emergency law for most of its existence. The country’s ethnic and religious mix has never been easy for Syria. The current conflict started in 2011 as part of the Arab Spring when Sunni groups sought to overthrown Bashar al-Assad, the Alawite president, who succeeded his father in 2000.

It would be easy to say that this is a civil war between Alawites who fear for their existence, and the Sunni majority. But like most things about the Middle East, which policymakers in the West don’t always understand, it gets complicated. The Alawites, with only 12% of the population, could not have ruled Syria all these decades without the support of ethnic and religious minorities who fear Sunni rule. Adding to this coalition are middle class Sunnis, especially from the merchant class, who fear that the Sunni groups leading the uprising are seeking to turn Syria, a secular country, into a theocracy. Many Syrians, both Sunni and non-Sunni, are also however fighting to overthrow what they see as an authoritarian and dictatorial regime intent on denying the country’s citizens basic human rights.

Enter the international community. In many ways this conflict is symbolic of the greater conflict occurring around the world between the two main branches of Islam: Sunni (80% of Muslims) and Shia. Supporting the Sunni groups are the Saudis, who practice an extreme form of Islam known as Wahhabism, which takes a literal approach to interpreting the Koran. Most Muslims around the world, including Sunnis living in Syria, don’t subscribe to this form of Islam. The US also supports some of the more moderate Sunni groups but to a lesser extent. The Alawites (a branch of the Shia faith) are supported by Iran, the world’s largest Shia state, and the Russians, who see themselves as defenders of Syria’s Orthodox Christians.

The death toll since the war started stands at 200,000 with millions more forced to flee the country as refugees. In all, over 7 million Syrians have been displaced, with millions fleeing to neighbouring countries like Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan. Syrians now make up at least 20% of Lebanon’s population, a tiny country that has its own volatile mix of sectarian groups.

Enter ISIS and other extreme Muslim groups. The Syrian government currently controls only one third of the nation’s territory, not to mention less than 60% of its population. This has given groups like ISIS free reign to rampage through Syria and Iraq, bringing terror and destruction to Sunnis and non-Sunnis alike. Extremists love a vacuum and the inability of the international community to find a solution has helped groups like ISIS to take advantage of a volatile situation. The problem is compounded by the inability of moderate Sunni opposition groups and the Assad regime to come to some agreement on how to end the civil war while destroying ISIS.

There currently seems to be no solution to the civil war in Syria. More troubling, Lebanon’s civil war lasted from 1975-1990, a full 15 years. It’s thus possible that the civil war in neighbouring Syria could go on for another decade. The situation is even worse when one considers the presence of fanatical groups like ISIS. The crisis in Syria is here to stay which makes finding a solution to the refugee crisis even more imperative.

FINDING A SOLUTION TO THE REFUGEE CRISIS

As events unfold, thousands of Syrian refugees are headed to Germany, the only country that seems to have both the will and the resources to take in so many desperate souls. Germany expects to receive 800,000 Syrian refugees by the end of 2015, equivalent to 1% of its population. This would be equivalent to Canada receiving well over 300,000 asylum seekers in just one year, or well over 3 million in the case of the US.

What about the rest of the European Union? Like Canada, the US, and Australia, most countries in the EU are getting a free pass on settling refugees. Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, has even publicly stated that the presence of so many Muslim asylum seekers poses a threat to Europe’s Christian roots. Other countries meanwhile simply feel they don’t have the resources that Germany enjoys.

Germany, in contrast, takes a sharply different position. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, makes the point that Germany is only doing what it is morally and legally required to do as a European country, proving yet again that both she and the German republic are the undisputed leaders of Europe. But Germany’s resources are not infinite and calls on the part of Chancellor Merkel and Francois Hollande (French president) for other EU states to take in refugees has been met with little enthusiasm.

Are these other EU states justified in rejecting so many refugee claimants? Evidence suggests that most of the migrants are heading for Germany. To get there they’re crossing through Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, Hungary, and Austria, before arriving in Germany, their final destination. These refugees may be destitute but they’re not stupid which explains why no one is seeking asylum in an economically destitute EU country like Greece. Germany it seems is the perfect destination for asylum seekers. Not only is it Europe’s largest economy, it also has a low birth rate. Refugees bring workers and young children to an aging society in desperate need of both.

Some might logically think that France would be a natural country for these refugees to settle in, since so many of them speak French. Unfortunately France has problems of its own, starting with a high unemployment rate. France also has a large Muslim population, and many French citizens feel they’re not integrating as well as they should. But more disturbing for the future of French democracy has been the unfortunate rise of the far right National Front (led by Marie Le Pen) which has become a prominent player in French politics. The fear is that the arrival of more Muslim immigrants will only drive more young voters to vote for Marie Le Pen at the expense of both the Socialist and Gaullist parties.

Can the rest of Europe help by taking in more refugees? Unfortunately countries like Portugal, Spain, and Italy all have high unemployment rates, and a poor record at integrating Muslim immigrants. Other countries like Belgium and the Netherlands, tiny nations by North American standards, already feel they have taken enough legal immigrants and have far right wing parties of their own to worry about.

WHICH COUNTRIES SHOULD TAKE IN REFUGEES

There are three countries that should be taking in more refugees from the Syrian conflict: Canada, Australia, and the United States. All three countries should set up operations in Lebanon, Turkey, and Jordan for accepting refugees who would otherwise make the hazardous trip to Germany.

Let’s start with Canada, the country my family emigrated to from a small town in Southern Italy back in 1956. Canada is, as anyone who has driven across it can attest to, the world’s second largest country but with a relatively small population of less than 37 million people. Canada enjoys one of the world’s highest standards of living, is a member of the G8, and is officially bilingual. Canada also has a low birth rate but receives 250,000 immigrants each year. These immigrants allow Canada to better deal with its aging demographics. They also bring much needed job skills and cheap labour. It’s a win-win situation for both Canada and newcomers.

Bringing in 100,000 Syrian refugees over the next 5 years is something Canada can easily accomplish. For starters, French speaking Syrian refugees could be sent to Quebec, where they could be more easily integrated. As for the rest of the applicants, they could be resettled in large cities like Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton, and Calgary.

Is there any precedent for this in Canada’s history? Of course there is. Over 60,000 Vietnamese boat people were brought to Canada as refugees back in the late seventies and early eighties, and thousands of Hungarians fleeing the Hungarian uprising arrived in the nineteen fifties. Taking in refugees has never been a problem for Canada. So what are Canadian politicians recommending? The current government is aiming for 10,000 refugees over three years, while opposition leaders are throwing numbers like 10,000 and 25,000.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is desperately campaigning to keep his job and recently stated that Canada is the most generous country in the world on a per capita basis with regard to accepting immigrants and refugees. But how many countries in the world enjoy Canada’s wide open spaces and level of prosperity?

Australia is another country that can do more. But like Canada and the United States, it has taken in fewer than 3,000 refugees. And like Hungary, Australia is not ashamed to pursue a policy of exclusion with regard to asylum seekers, going even so far as to deploy its navy to turn back boats with migrants, including asylum seekers, before they come to close to Australia’s shores. Those turned back are then held at detention centers run by private contractors on nearby islands, including the tiny nation of Nauru. All this is quite frankly immoral. Australia, like Canada, enjoys a high standard of living and took in thousands of Vietnamese boat people decades ago. Most of these refuges have integrated into Australian society. Australia could easily accept 100,000 refugees and spread them over its largest cities.

As for the United States, 300,000 refugees could be settled in its largest cities. With an unemployment rate of only 5.1%, the US receives more immigrants, legal and illegal, than any other country. It also has a large Arab-American community that is dynamic and fully integrated into American society. It has in the past welcomed millions of Vietnamese, Iranian, and Cuban refugees and could easily do the same with Syrians, many of whom are middle class and educated. And with a population of 300 million, 300,000 refugees can easily be assimilated.

CONCLUSION

The refugee crisis in Syria will not end until a political solution is found. This requires that the warring communities in Syria come to some kind of political compromise. But how does one compromise with an organization like ISIS? And are the benefactors of each side, namely, Iran and Saudi Arabia, ready to forge some kind of compromise? Defeating ISIS will likely require help from NATO, Iran, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. But what happens once ISIS is defeated? Do the different groups, religious and ethnic, then go back to slaughtering one another?

In the meantime millions of refugees in countries bordering Syria dream of immigrating to Europe, the US, Canada, and Australia. Canada, Australia, and the US can do their part by taking in a fair number of these refugees until a political solution is found. All three countries have the territory and level of economic development that can easily absorb such a small number. And all three countries are multi-ethnic and based on the rule of law. Most European nations, in contrast, are small in size and economically stagnant. Other countries like Japan, China, and Korea can do their part as global citizens by providing large amounts of financial aid to the many refugee camps situated in Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, and Syria.

The world watched in horror as the lifeless body of 3 year old Aylan Kurdi was carried out of the water and laid to rest on a Turkish beach. Millions around the world watched this scene on television and read about it on the internet or through social media. What these same viewers don’t know is that some 12,000 children have perished in Syria’s civil war. 

Countries like Canada, Australia, and the United States all refused to take in Jewish refugees in the 1930s and 40s, many of whom were Aylan Kurdi’s age. Now is the time to show how far we have all come by taking in a modest number of Syrian refugees.

THE TRUE MEANING OF SAMUEL HUNTINGTON’S “CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS” – BY PHILIP PETRAGLIA (philpetraglia@gmail.com)

There are few political scientists who have had as extraordinary a career as the late professor Samuel P. Huntington. Professor of Political Science at Harvard University from 1963-2008, and a lifelong Democrat, Huntington’s crown jewel was “The Clash of Civilizations & the Remaking of the World Order”, published in 1996. For many scholars, this treatise remains the most important book on world affairs published in the past 25 years, and should be read by anyone concerned with world peace and the future of humanity.

The reason I chose to write on this book is because it seems like a day doesn’t go by that we don’t hear politicians and public officials raising “the clash of civilizations” doctrine whenever marginal and terrorist groups like ISIS destroy a Christian church in the Middle East or sponsor a terrorist attack on European soil. Politicians from both the left and the right resort to this doctrine as a way of explaining events they don’t truly understand. The thesis of this essay is to explain what Professor Huntington meant by “the clash of civilizations” and why the majority of officials and pundits who resort to this doctrine don’t really understood what Huntington was talking about.

Huntington begins with the end of the Cold War in the 1980s, a brief conflict between two superpowers (US & USSR) over which secular ideology (liberal democracy and capitalism versus communism) would prevail. Countries aligned themselves with one of two superpowers, regardless of culture, ethnicity, or religion, except for some “non-aligned” nations found mainly in the developing world. History had become frozen in time. Whether states were Asian, European, and African were irrelevant. Cultural differences were set aside for most of the 20th century, an anomaly in human history. This era ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall in the 1980s and the return of history. The most important distinctions would by then become cultural rather than ideological, political, or economic.

For Huntington, it’s possible that a global civilization may one day emerge, but we’re not there yet. Differences between civilizations vastly outnumber commonalities. The fact they’re eating fast food in Saudi Arabia does not mean the Saudis have become part of western civilization, nor does the adoption of western technology in Iran and China mean these civilizations have become westernized. Having a computer, a western invention, is one thing, possessing the right to use it for sharing your opinions on the internet free of government reprisals, also a western concept, is another matter.

But what is a civilization? It’s something that goes beyond the superficial. In short, civilization involves the values, norms, institutions, and mode of thinking to which successive generations have attached primary importance. A civilization may contain one or many political entities, such as city states (Singapore), empires (British), federations (Russia), confederations, nation states, and multinational states (a future United States of Europe comes to mind). But of all the distinguishing elements, religion remains by far the most important. It serves to distinguish one civilization from another and remains a major source of conflict.

The current conflict in the Muslim World would no doubt be exhibit one. And as events in the former Yugoslavia point out, people with different religions will slaughter one another even if sharing a common ethnicity and language. Thus Roman Catholic Croatians and Orthodox Serbs slaughtered one another before turning their attention to slaughtering Muslim Bosnians, who in turn returned the favour once foreign jihadists arrived.

In Lebanon, Muslims and Christians slaughtered one another over a twenty year period, despite sharing a common language and ethnicity. In Sudan, the conflict between the Muslim north and the Christian south eventually lead to the south seceding from Sudan and forming its own nation, but only after thousands of lives were lost. In Sri Lanka, a bloody civil war between Hindu Tamils and the Buddhist Sinhalese majority ended only once the Sinhalese won a conclusive victory. In Indonesia, Christian East Timor was finally allowed to secede from predominantly Muslim Indonesia only after a long civil war ended. Meanwhile, a civil war continues to range in Ukraine between the western part of the country and the eastern part, which remains predominantly Russian speaking and adherent to the Russian Orthodox Church.

Huntington counts no fewer than 8 major civilizations, all of which deserve our respect. These civilizations are grouped as follows: Chinese, Japanese, Hindu (India), Islamic, Christian Orthodox (led by Russia), Western (led by the US), Latin America, and African. Huntington’s thesis is simple: Avoidance of a global war of civilization depends on world leaders accepting and cooperating to maintain the multi-civilizational character of global politics. It also means accepting the notion that the rest of the world doesn’t necessarily want to adopt the West’s liberal democratic values, including its progressive stance on social issues.

But most importantly, the West must understand that for many in the rest of the world, “modernization” isn’t equated with “westernization” and that to believe otherwise is to be culturally arrogant and disrespectful of other civilizations. “Modernization”, as Huntington correctly points out, is producing neither a universal civilization nor the westernization of non-western societies. Samuel Huntington is thus showing himself to be the ultimate anti-imperialist, believing as he does that all civilizations are equal. And this equality of civilizations extends to our own, here in the West, from where I write free from any reprisals for writing these words.

Samuel Huntington’s views are interesting for what he’s not suggesting. He does not for example call for a clash of civilizations, nor does he necessarily equate this conflict as involving violence. In fact he even suggests that conflict can be avoided if there is mutual respect. Unfortunately, as Huntington points out, much of the rest of the world sees the West as arrogant and hypocritical. It is arrogant in its belief that it has developed the supreme culture that all other civilizations should seek to emulate and hypocritical in criticizing human rights violations only when it serves its needs.

Different civilizations with different agendas will go about doing their business in a way which we in the West are uncomfortable with. Legal systems for example will vary differently from one civilization to another. Not every corner of the globe will adopt either Common Law or Civil Law, both of which have as their source states and cultures (England in the case of Common Law and Classical Rome in the case of Civil Law) based in the West. Are we in the West willing to accept differences? George W Bush’s invasion of Iraq, a region that is part of a civilization most Americans don’t understand or care to understand, would suggest otherwise.

Huntington spends a considerable amount of time writing about the clash of civilizations between the West and non-Muslim societies. In short, this book isn’t obsessed with any conflict that may exist between the West and Islam. I say this because the clash of civilizations doctrine is only raised with regard to Islamic extremism whenever a terrorist group like ISIS commits one of its barbaric acts. His concern with China and Russia’s future relations with the West are clear examples. In the case of China we see a proud civilization that goes back thousands of years and that lead the world in commerce for centuries. China is today the world’s largest country with an economy set to surpass that of the United States. It is currently flexing its naval muscles in the South China Sea, much as the US did in the Caribbean and Latin America (Monroe Doctrine) during much of the 19th century. China and the US will probably never go to war with one another but China will attempt to exert its rightful place on the world stage.

We in the West, as Huntington reminds us, must accept the historical fact that with economic might goes political and military influence, as rich nations build up their armies and navies. The fact that the US and China trade with one another does not mean that China is set to become a liberal democracy any day soon. Culture, as Huntington points out in another one of his treatises, remains important, and China will remain a one party authoritarian state for many years to come. In the end, the clash of civilizations will involve many civilizations attempting to find their rightful place in the 21st century and beyond and must thus not be seen as primarily a conflict between Islam and the West.

The case of Russia is equally interesting. Russia is as usual caught between the West and the East, neither fully European nor Asian. Dostoevsky and Tolstoy had this discussion in the 19th century and it continues till this day. But as Putin shows us, his authoritarianism is a clear rejection of western democratic values. And as a country that sees itself as leader of the Orthodox Christian world, Russia also rejects what it sees as the corrupting influences of western society in the social arena, whether in regard to pluralism, gay rights, or women’s rights. Interestingly, this is something that Russian civilization shares with Muslim and Asian civilizations: a belief that western values and laws on social issues are too extreme and alien to be imported into their respective societies.

India meanwhile also rejects the West’s social value system while attempting to develop its economy. It ranks today as one of the world’s largest economies, and is attempting to develop its democracy within a Hindu dominated framework, as the recent election of the Hindu Nationalist party, the BJP, shows. As Huntington points out, the Muslim world is spreading its influence and civilization through population growth and exportation of immigrants, while Asian societies seek to expand their economies.

Where does this put Latin America and Africa? Huntington points out that at least from a political perspective, these represent the weaker civilizations, as neither is led by a “core” state that is able to provide political and economic leadership, much as the US does for the West, Russia for Orthodox Christianity, and China for the Sinic civilization.

Huntington rightly points out that the West is in decline, both in demographic and economic terms. This also means that the West is declining in political influence. Countries in the developing world may, as a consequence, look to countries from civilizations they’re part of for political and economic inspiration. China will likely be more inspired by Singapore, a country it has so much in common culturally, than it will from either the United States, with its dysfunctional Congress, or from the European Union, which remains divided and unequal in every sense.

But Huntington does not despair for the West, though he remains worried. His main concern is with multi-culturalism in the case of the US, which he sees as diluting the American identity and creating ethnocentrism, and Muslim immigration to Europe, which he believes will lead to social unrest and lack of solidarity. Huntington would likely argue that imposing western values on newcomers, whether in the US or Europe, is as valid as non-western societies imposing local and indigenous (non-western) values on their citizens. As Huntington points out, we in the West need to know who we are and to appreciate western civilization for what it is and what it has given us.

Huntington probably got it wrong on multiculturalism. Diversity may actually be one of America’s strong points as immigrants are among America’s most enterprising entrepreneurs. One has only to think off tech companies in Silicon Valley started by Asian immigrants, to take but one example. Not only do Hispanics and other immigrants provide scientists, cheap labour and budding entrepreneurs, they also provide plenty of children. Thus unlike Europe, South Korea, and Japan, America’s population will continue to rise, adding to its social and economic vitality. America certainly has its weak points, but the best and the brightest across the world still aspire to start a company somewhere in California.

America’s biggest threat is not demographic changes but the growing gap between the wealthy and the shrinking middle class, not to mention the working poor. No great country with a weakened middle class that feels economically and politically marginalized can ever remain leader of a civilization. And as Huntington points out, if America declines, so does Western civilization. Huntington does not deal with this economic inequality and the consequences for America’s ability to lead the West. One who did was writer and commentator Kevin Phillips who wrote a series of books going back to the 1990s that chronicles the decline of America’s middle class. “Boiling Point: Democrats, Republicans, and the Decline of Middle Class Prosperity”, published in 1993, is a must read for anyone interested in understanding the biggest threat to America’s survival as a vibrant and prosperous liberal democracy.

Professor Huntington predicted the collapse of the former Soviet Union decades before it occurred. He no doubt will also be remembered for coining and developing the notion of an impending “clash of civilizations”. But he also should be remembered for his humility. For example, he starts his treatise by outlining the limits to his theory, something which journalists, writers, and academics almost never do. He points out that no paradigm is eternally valid, and that while a civilizational approach is useful for understanding global politics in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, this does not mean that it might be equally helpful in the mid-21st century. He also points out that the West will continue to dominate well into the 21st century. Huntington does not see the West experiencing a cataclysmic collapse so much as a gradual decline in regard to other civilizations. All civilizations, in other words, will eventually have their seat at the table.

SOME CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Professor Huntington’s book should be read by any pundit, politician, or citizen who feels he or she is qualified to us the term “clash of civilizations”, either to support a theory that he or she likely misunderstands or to criticize the doctrine. Doing otherwise is both intellectually lazy and dangerous. A keen observer of international relations who refrains from using the expression is President Barrack Obama, who, regardless of whether he agrees with Huntington’s views, understands that most people hearing the phrase have likely never read Professor’s Huntington’s book. The theory should, after-all, be used to promote comprehension not ignite conflict and misunderstanding.

In the end, Professor Huntington, an American citizen, was recommending restraint in how countries like the United States exercises foreign policy. The US, he believed, should not rush into every foreign conflict with the idea of imposing western values and solutions. This is something that Barrack Obama clearly understands. Criticized for not intervening more aggressively in Libya and Syria by Hillary Clinton among others, President Obama no doubt understands Huntington’s warning that intervening in other countries’ civil wars can only make matters worse, especially where the cultures in question are totally foreign to the western observer. And as President Obama likely lectured his students while teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, a country should clean up its own mess before attempting to fix the rest of the world’s problems.

Huntington’s book is about the clash between civilizations. But another clash is also taking place which he fails to talk about in his book, namely, the clash within civilizations. We see it in the Middle East between extreme Muslim groups like ISIS and the majority of Muslim citizens who reject terrorism, fanaticism, and a perverted interpretation of the Koran. Perhaps this clash of civilizations within civilizations will eventually lead to the global civilization that so many are hoping for.

The situation in the rest of the world is also more complicated than Huntington would suggest, as most citizens seek to determine who they are and where their respective countries belong on the world stage. States like Taiwan and South Korea, populated by Asians, started out as dictatorships, moved to soft authoritarianism, and are now liberal democracies with free elections supervised by an independent press. Can it be said that Taiwan is still part of Chinese civilization, or does it straddle two civilizations?

Professor Huntington rightly points out that there is no one global civilization but that one might emerge in the future. He correctly points out that political development is not static. States and civilizations are continuously evolving. They come and go, replaced by other states and civilizations. His recommendation of mutual respect and recognition is a recipe for avoiding global conflict through misunderstanding and rash judgments like choosing to invade other societies.

Avoiding the clash of civilizations will in the end allow societies from different civilizations to cooperate on a range of issues from combatting global warming, to increasing trade, and yes, even promoting democracy and human rights. Promoting human rights requires, however, that we in the West show sensitivity to cultural differences as they currently exist. 

In the end, allowing politicians and pundits to misuse the term will only lead to needless and avoidable conflicts. A journalist should consequently always ask any public official using the term whether he or she has ever read the book, and to provide a definition. Of course, this implies that journalists and commentators know where the term comes from in the first place!

DEALING WITH CALIFORNIA’S WATER ISSUES THROUGH FAIRNESS – BY PHILIP PETRAGLIA (philpetraglia@gmail.com)

The issue of California’s water crisis has been at the top of the news since Governor Jerry Brown announced mandatory reduction in water use this past April, a first in California’s history.

Since then countless articles have been written on measures taken, both voluntary and state mandated. The media has been especially adept at explaining the reasons for the water scarcity, and experts have been interviewed on potential solutions.

The issue of how California deals with its water issues is in its infancy stage. A severe water drought also occurred in the 1970s, but today’s scarcity is more alarming, for not only has California’s population risen to almost 40 million, there’s the issue of global warming to deal with. These new novelties require a long-term strategy, especially as global warming and population growth continues to take its toll on California’s limited water resources.

What this blog proposes is the idea that California’s water issues can only be adequately dealt with through fairness, common sense, and imagination.

A FEW FACTS ABOUT CALIFORNIA

California has a population of 38 million. More alarmingly, it is expected to reach 60 million by the end of the 21st century. Not only is it America’s most populace state, California is home to 1 in 8 Americans. California is a majority minority state, with minorities constituting 60% of the population. Hispanics are the largest minority group at 38%, and could constitute a majority by the end of the 21st century. They are also at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. How water issues are handled could become a thorny political and human rights issue not only for California, but also for southwestern states like Arizona and New Mexico once Hispanics reach a clear majority.

California contains eight of America’s 50 biggest cities, is the third largest US state, and has the world’s 9th largest economy. Agriculture represents a meager 2% of California’s GDP, consumes 80% of its water, and provides America with 50% of its fruits, vegetables, and nuts. The five largest sectors of employment are in trade, transportation, and utilities; professional and business services; education and health services, and lastly, in leisure and hospitality. Computers and electronics are California’s top products, accounting for 42% of the state’s exports.

FINDING SOLUTIONS

Governor Brown is doing his best to deal with the state’s water challenges, but there are limits to what any one politician can do in a society built around personal pleasure and materialism. The media’s coverage of how Californians are reacting to the drought is testimony to the fact that citizens are not ready to give up on conveniences like green lawns, and how the rest of us in Canada and the US would likely react in a similar situation. The fact that water use in the midst of the severest drought declined by less than 3% this past February is no doubt testimony to our tendency as a species to hang on to creature comforts and desires.

Green lawns are a good example. The city of Los Angeles has, since 2009, paid 1.4 million dollars to homeowners to have their front lawns ripped out and replaced by less thirsty landscaping. Whether desert landscaping should replace grass has even become a topic of discussion for suburbanites seeking to make desert landscape more child friendly. Lawns constitute the single biggest use of residential water and 50% of urban water is used outdoors. Nevertheless the percentage of water going to keep green lawns alive is insignificant (less than 5%) compared to the 80% going to agriculture. But there seems to be a fixation with green lawns because it stirs something in us, however irrational to finding a solution.

A lot of coverage has been about the state’s antiquated pricing system. Consumers, whether in agriculture or in cities, are not paying market prices, thus keeping the price of water low. And of course, the cheaper the price, the less likely consumers will conserve and use water efficiently. Many experts maintain that the price of water going into homes does not cover the cost of delivery. They add that rates have little relation to the water’s replacement costs, and that the complexity of water law along with heavily subsidized federal and state projects, have complicated the economics of water delivery. Many of these proponents are recommending that we move away from an over-reliance on engineering solutions, to one in favour of economic approaches, where water is treated as a commodity to be sold and bought.

Several articles dealt with desalination plants, especially one being built in Carlsbad and expected to open in 3 years. The problem of course is that desalination plants tend to be expensive, energy sucking, and environmentally dubious. No economically and environmentally viable desalination plant has in fact ever been built in the US.  Whether desalination plants currently in use in Israel and Australia are economically viable while meeting environmental standards are thus worth examining.

Many experts are calling for smaller and less expensive solutions, like reusing water, whether storm water or from the bathroom, for drinking and irrigating lawns. The issue there is the cost of installing water usage systems and whether consumers can get over the “yuck” factor in drinking toilet water that’s been purified.

But by far the thorniest issue is that of agriculture. Water rights in the US are primarily subject to state law. All experts agree that both pricing and access to water has to change and that water delivery must become more rational. But recommended solutions differ. Some would argue for metered water on demand while others argue for doing away with water thirsty crops like almonds no matter how lucrative. But all would agree that the legal system has not kept pace with either the state’s population growth or with climatic changes. The rights farmers enjoy to water pre-dates 1930 when the state’s population was less than 6 million. It is to a large extent a first come first serve model, makes no room for efficiency, and is quite bluntly, unfair in its pricing and access policies.

SOME CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

As stated earlier, California’s water issues can only be adequately dealt with through fairness, common sense, and imagination. This requires having to make hard choices both at the federal and state levels. It means that the problem should be seen as a national rather than state and local one.

Let’s start with the common sense part. Californians need to ask themselves whether it makes rationale sense for 80% of its water to go to a sector of the economy (agriculture) that is fairly miniscule. Some will answer yes to this question, since 50% of America’s fruits, vegetables, and nuts come from California. An argument can be made, in response, that the rest of the US needs California’s agricultural sector to thrive more than California does. A cost benefit analysis of how water is used would suggest that not more than one third of that state’s water should be directed towards agriculture. But what would happen if the US received only 25%of its fruits and vegetables from California? Who would make up the difference? There are three options. The first is to import more agricultural products from Asia and Latin America through free trade agreements. The second would be for other states to increase their agricultural output. Was it ever wise from a policy perspective to have 50% of America’s fruits and vegetables come from one state? The third option is to reduce waste. Every year tons of fruits and vegetables go to waste because of bad distribution and storage. This is something that should be remedied. Savings would accrue to both sellers and buyers.

Many will argue that it’s in America’s self-interest to remain self-sufficient with regard to agriculture; that this is in fact a national security issue. If this is the case, then it may be time for Californians to demand that the federal government do its part in maintaining California’s agricultural industry by subsidizing desalination plants and other infrastructure projects that would allow all sectors of the state’s economy to use water in a more efficient manner.

The fairness part means changing the antiquated way that Californians receive their water, whether in regard to price or distribution. But it needs to be fair. Water should be treated as a human rights issue rather than as a commodity. Minorities living in urban and rural areas should have access to the same amount of water as citizens in wealthier counties. A McMansion with a huge front lawn should not be allowed to consume more water than an inner city home with a tiny lot. True, lawns are not really a big deal from a practical point of view, as stated earlier, but everyone must feel that they are pulling their full share and that no one can buy their way out of the water issues facing the state. The old legal adage that justice must not only be done but seen to be done applies to water issues, especially in a state where minorities feel politically underrepresented.

The imagination part relates to imagining a state with a different future. California is known for its endless suburbs full of McMansions and cookie cutter homes. A two hour drive to and from work is not unknown for many living in LA’s suburbs. What is required is some long term urban planning that takes into account how water is used. Municipal codes, building codes, land planning acts, and other statutes and regulations should be re-examined with the following question in mind: How can they be amended so as to encourage better water usage? Should detached single family homes still be encouraged? Does vertical construction make more sense than horizontal construction? Do duplexes and triplexes make better use of water usage than detached single family homes? Transportation is another matter. Does have fewer cars on the road lead to less water consumption?

In the end common sense will have to prevail over business as usual. A change in mind set is required not only on the part of politicians and policymakers, but also on the part of citizens. The issues facing California must be looked as a challenge rather than a problem. Long term solutions must be aimed for. The media describes this as a drought. But droughts are seen as temporary crises requiring short term solutions. Californians must view the challenges facing them differently. Water can’t be manufactured, it remains a finite resource, and the need for more water will only increase with population growth and climate change. Better then to search for long term and practical solutions that don’t cater to either sentiment, consumer zeal, or the interests of special interest groups.

DAVID BROOKS & THE ROAD TO CHARACTER – BY PHILIP PETRAGLIA

David Brooks is a highly acclaimed columnist with the New York Times best known for his comments on US politics and international affairs. He’s also known for being a moderate conservative and social critic unafraid to tackle political correctness.

“The Road to Character” is his latest book and it deals with the issue of character versus ambition. It’s a short and highly readable book, running at slightly more than 300 pages, with chapters organized around great individuals from history who came to personify great moral character.

The thesis of the book is straightforward. As human beings, we all have two types of virtues: the RÉSUMÉ virtues and the eulogy virtues. The RÉSUMÉ virtues are what you bring to the market and that contribute to your external success. Your career ambitions and achievements are part of these virtues. The eulogy virtues are, in comparison, the virtues talked about at your funeral and that are at the core of your being. These virtues deal with your values as a human being, with whether you were a good person and motivated by virtues like humility, selflessness, love, and compassion for others.

Brooks makes the argument that society encourages us to think about how to pursue a great career while leaving us clueless as to how we go about cultivating the inner life.

The author is by no means an idealist nor does he glorify the past. His point is that pre-war society (before 1945) was more humble, tied as it was to a moral ecology stretching back centuries to biblical times. But from 1945 onwards Brooks sees a broad shift from a culture of humility to what he calls the BIG ME, from a culture that encourages people to think humbly of themselves to a culture that encourages people to see themselves as the center of the universe. This self-centeredness, he argues, leads to selfishness and pride, which allows people to feel superior to others.

Why did all this happen? Moral realism was an understanding of human nature that went back to biblical times and that emphasized sin and human weakness. Why did it decline? The notion of moral realism would collapse in the 1940s and 1950s because people sought to escape from the shackles of self-restraint and subjects like sin and depravity. The war had taken its toll and people were ready to pursue individual desires like never before. The age of materialism and marketing would soon be upon us.

The 1950s would usher in the age of positive thinking and the shallow belief that all we had to do to be happy was cast negative thoughts from our minds and pep talk ourselves into greatness and feeling good. The age of positive thinking was followed by humanistic psychology which told us to love ourselves. Brooks does however see some positive developments like the women’s movement and the civil rights movement which encouraged women and minority groups to see themselves in a better light. His argument is simply that the shift to the BIG ME culture went too far. The moral realist tradition that emphasized limitation and moral struggle was marginalized and replaced by a materialistic and narcissistic culture. This new way of seeing humanity encourages all of us to love ourselves at the expense of all other values and with as few moral restraints as possible.

Brooks’ great desire is to encourage individuals to seek some kind of balance between the RÉSUMÉ virtues and the eulogy virtues. He sees humility as our greatest virtue and encourages the reader to strive for purpose and righteousness while reminding us that we are all flawed creatures who should not put ourselves at the center of the universe. Brooks takes special aim at pride, for it is pride that is our central vice and that makes us believe we are better than we really are and that makes us believe we are better than those around us. And most importantly, he advises us to choose a vocation over a career as the former will provide us with psychological benefits and purpose in life.

It is easy to be cynical about this book. After all, an argument can be made that it’s easy for a New York Times columnist secure in his career to wax poetically about goodness and humility. Isn’t it easier to be good and noble after you’ve taken care of your basic needs (Maslow)? Doesn’t the pursuit of goodness and virtue put one at a competitive disadvantage with those who would succeed at any cost?

The answer to these questions are found in the book’s rich biographies. These individuals were successful in their careers while remaining humble and virtuous. Frances Perkins, for example, was the first woman to sit as cabinet secretary and one of only two top aides to stay with FDR during his term as president. Her life changed after witnessing the horrific Triangle fire of 1911 in which dozens of women lost their lives. This event encouraged her to set her own ego aside and to work for a greater cause, which meant working for workers’ safety legislation. Perkins essentially traded a career for a vocation.

Other great individuals in this book include President Dwight Eisenhower, a great military leader during the Second World War, and George Marshall, architect of the Marshall Plan that saved Europe from economic ruin. These were hardily losers in life whose virtues kept them from succeeding in their careers.

We live in an age of cynicism. Poll after poll points to the fact that Americans, Canadians, and Europeans have negative views of their political leaders. The views that citizens have of Wall Street and financial institutions are even bleaker. The reasons for this are simple: Most citizens believe their political leaders to be motivated by greed and personal ambition at the expense of the common good. There’s also a feeling that the interests of special interest groups usually takes precedence over the common good. In sum, a society perceived as lacking in virtue will inevitably breed cynicism and anger on the part of its citizens.

This book is timely for it encourages us to think in terms of creating a society based on higher values rather than one where pleasure, greed and ambition are the only goals in life. And maybe if we see leaders with some of the virtues described in this book we may come to feel less cynical about the society we live in, whether in regard to our neighbours, employers, business leaders, politicians, or colleagues at work.

THE LIMITS TO CHINA’S RISE – BY PHILIP PETRAGLIA (philpetraglia@gmail.com)

Published in 2014, “The Age of Ambition: Chasing Fortune, Truth, & Faith in the New China”, is an ambitious book authored by Evan Osnos, a staff writer with the New Yorker magazine since 2008.

Fluent in Mandarin, Osnos lived several years in China and travelled extensively throughout the country meeting intellectuals, business people, journalists, and artists.

What comes through in this book is not only a good description of China’s meteoric rise, but also the extraordinary problems and challenges facing it for the remainder of this century.

Osnos starts us off in the 18th century when Imperial China controlled one third of the world’s wealth with cities more prosperous than either Dutch or British ones. The 19th and 20th centuries in contrast saw the decline of Chinese supremacy as China became crippled by invasion, civil wars, and political upheaval. The modern era soon emerged which we can divide into two parts.

The first would start in 1949 with the takeover of China by the Communist Party (CP) led by Chairman Mao. The early beginning of Communist rule is a sordid tale of mismanagement culminating in the Great Leap Forward (1958), resulting in 30-45 million Chinese starving to death.

The second part started in 1979 with the emergence of Deng Xiaoping as supreme party leader and hence ruler of China. This pivotal year marks the beginning of reforms. Becoming rich was now suddenly a noble ideal. But there would be limitations, and ever the great communicator, the CP led it be known that the country’s new system of governance would be marked by capitalism but with no democracy, no multi-party elections, no free speech, no federalism, and no rule of law (independent judiciary). The CP would give its citizens prosperity and the grateful masses would respond with loyalty to the CP.

The world was changing in the late nineteen seventies. The Carter administration in the US would officially recognize the CP as China’s legitimate government (1978), much to the consternation of right wing Republicans in the US Congress, not to mention Taiwan which naturally felt both vulnerable and betrayed by a trusted ally. Meanwhile China would put in motion the whole process of economic reforms (minus political counterpart) by designating special economic zones in 1980 and officially permitting rural people to live and work temporarily in cities.

The rest as they say is history. In 1978 a full 80% of Chinese worked on farms. This figure would fall to 50% by 1994. But more revealing, while China’s exports were only a third of America’s in 1999, it would become the world’s largest exporter by 2009. But with economic prosperity came decadence as China would surpass the US as the world’s largest consumer of luxury goods by 2012. But more importantly for the Chinese, the top 10% of urban Chinese were by 2007 earning 9.2 times as much as the bottom tenth.

The Chinese version of the Gilded Age had arrived. This phenomenon, as Osnos correctly reminds us, is not a sign of progress. The Gilded Age in the US occurred in the 1870’s and 1880’s and was marked by a weak rule of law, corporate monopolies, and corruption: three major issues currently confronting China. Osnos fails to mention, however, that while the US had a free press and a multi-party system allowing it to elect progressives like Theodore Roosevelt to the White House, China enjoys neither a free press nor two party rule, making reforms much more difficult.

Osnos concludes that the biggest problem facing China today is the gap in opportunity between the wealthy and the poor, especially between those with family connections to the CP and those common citizens lacking in such advantages. He concludes by stating that China can best be described as a land of untamed capitalism, graft, & rampant inequality. The inequality part is especially revealing. The richest 70 members of China’s national legislature currently have a net worth of almost 90 billion dollars or 10 times more than the combined net worth of the entire US Congress!

Osnos describes China as a country that is directionless both politically and culturally. Chinese citizens today are not only more prosperous than at any other time in their history, but also enjoy certain liberties unimaginable just three decades ago. In the end, what it comes down to is the ability of Chinese citizens to live their lives as they choose so long as they refrain from challenging one party rule. Everyone in China knows they have certain liberties and advantages that were previously denied to them. Society is changing. But how far citizens can go in living their lives as free men and women remains unclear.

The internet is a case in point. Millions of Chinese use the internet to access everything from making purchases to reading articles published by the western media. In response to this phenomenon, the CP thus set up the “Great Firewall” in 2005 to control news from the digital media. All criticisms of the CP would be blocked out, along with references to Tiananmen Square, corruption committed by members of the CP, and any criticisms of CP policies with regard to how the country was governed. Deng Xiaoping would even state in response to the massacres in Tiananmen Square that the Party’s survival would depend on prosperity and propaganda rather than in opening the political process.

Free speech or the lack thereof is another case in point. The CP regularly uses violence to put down demonstrations, whether by artists, workers (remember, China was to be the “workers’ paradise”), environmental groups, or students. Yet there are more newspapers and media outlets than ever, only with certain restrictions. Chinese citizens have come to understand that there’s a line that can’t be crossed. The problem is that this line keeps shifting.

Why then do so many in China, especially among the middle class, still look at the CP in a favourable light? The answers are many but one that stands out is the fear of losing all that has been gained by antagonizing the government (aka the CP). Many also cling to the Confucius ideal which links morality to the strength of the state. In other words, let’s merge the market with strong government. This in turn requires one party rule whose authority must be ultimately respected regardless of errors and bad policies. This notion that we can have economic development without political reform seems to be accepted by many in China, even the middle class. And lastly, there’s the issue of nationalism: the belief that the West (US & Europe) can no longer humiliate China. Even a world renowned artist like Ai Weiwei is seen by many in China as a dissident too quick to accept western criticism of China while not fully appreciating the complex problems faced by it.

Many Chinese citizens also look at the economic and political malaise in Europe & the US as proof that western style liberal democracy is no panacea to a nation’s problems. Add the current situation in the Middle East, Russia, and much of the developing world, and the situation in China looks fairly good. China is definitely not a democracy but at least it’s not rife with sectarian violence as in the Middle East. Nor is it a despotic country like Russia where prosperity is essentially built around the price of oil. One also has to look at where China is today compared to states from the former Soviet Union like Ukraine. Why was China able to forge ahead compared to so many newly established countries since the end of both the Second World War and Cold War?

The author does point however that the situation is not monolithic. Dissent does exist in one form or another. As Osnos sees it, the Chinese people have outpaced the political system that nurtured the rise of China. The CP has in essence unleashed the greatest expansion of human potential in world history, and in so doing, also the greatest threat to its own survival. Even China’s current leader, Xi Jinping, recently admitted that unless the CP beats back the tide of corruption, the CP and China will perish. In any event, all indicators at this time point to a middle class seeking to reform the government rather than to replace it though western style multi-party elections.

Osnos’s book is a good description of where China is today. It reminds us that most of us would not choose to ever live under such a system. China’s challenges are many and they will likely affect the rest of us in one or another. Let’s take the issue of globalization. China’s economy is intertwined with the global economy. Much of the US debt is owned by the US. China is the biggest trading partner of numerous countries around the world. But China is not a Liberal Democracy based on the rule of law. In other words, it does not have a transparent system. How much then do we really know about the solvency of its public and private companies? What stake does the Chinese state have in these companies? Is the real estate market in a bubble or set to collapse? In short, we don’t know how robust the Chinese economy is because the reporting requirements are weak and practically non-existent. What we take for granted here in the West with regard to corporate and business law is non-existent in China.

China’s population is currently still overwhelmingly rural. But what happens when it becomes largely urban and middle class? History shows us that most nations that become largely urban and middle class adopt some form of liberal democracy based on the rule of law and multi-party elections. Many living in authoritarian societies once argued that cultural differences kept them from adopting liberal democracy. But what were once authoritarian Asian states like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan would eventually evolve into liberal democracies. They did so through education, adopting the rule of law, and by growing their middle class through economic prosperity. These states were all culturally influenced by Confucius ideals but managed to transform themselves into full-fledged democracies.

In the end Chinese citizens rather than the CP will determine whether Liberal Democracy is a system appropriate for Chinese culture. They may for example start by introducing the rule of law. Why for example should the CP be above the law? If there’s one phenomenon that displeases most Chinese citizens it’s the issue of corruption, currently rampant throughout China. How can the CP ever justify corruption? Fighting corruption after-all is not the same as arguing for multi-party elections though the long-term effect may have that desired result.

Federalism is another issue. Is it logical for a nation with 1.4 billion people to be ruled by Beijing? Shouldn’t power be diffused through-out the provinces and regions? Why not give more power to city mayors considering the current rate of urbanization?

There are other threats to the CP. As the author points out, millions of well-educated Chinese are starved for spiritual nourishment. 18,000 will crowd local arenas to hear the noted Harvard scholar Michael Sandel speak on issues like justice, paying up to $500.00 for a ticket! Churches and Buddhist monasteries are full of citizens seeking spiritual nourishment and some meaning to living in a society that seems to worship at the altar of material wealth and status.

This brings up the issue of inequality. Societies that remain unequal invite protest and revolution. Why should China be different? How far can the CP hold on to power if citizens don’t feel the system is based on merit? Indeed, the Chinese revere their past because a meritocracy was set up by Imperial rulers to attract the most qualified into the civil service. China today is anything but a meritocracy as even many in the CP would acknowledge.

And lastly, what if the CP is not able to continue growing the economy at such an expeditious rate? Citizens living in the countryside currently expect to get decent manufacturing jobs when moving to the cities, while the urban and educated middle class expect their university educated children to receive good paying jobs. What happens to the notion of prosperity and obedience to the CP if the rest of the developing world starts to catch up with China? More importantly, what if the West gets its economic house in order? Will China become less competitive?

In the end, the Chinese may come up with some alternative model that might even appeal to countries in the developing world. Perhaps the Singaporean model, which journalist Robert D Kaplan calls soft authoritarianism, will be adopted. Kaplan sees “soft authoritarianism” as a bridge for states trying to get from authoritarian one party rule to Liberal Democracy based on multi-party elections. It’s based on the rule of law, meritocracy, and greater liberties. Time will tell.