Judge not lest yea be Judged

Society is separated into groups along easily discernable boundaries, like languages, race or class, but there are other demarcations like geographical origin and religious beliefs also. These are some of the social aspects which helps determine how people perceive each other and ultimately how we judge each other. Commonly asked questions are. Who are you? Where are you from? Although decisions based on skin color, status, physical appearance or age may not be easy to spot, not to mention being politically incorrect, they probably happen on a regular basis. Judging people based on stereotypes is a common practice. It is an intrinsic albeit, an underlying part of the way we judge our peers. The structures of society and more often than not our pervading human psyche perpetuate it. It is part of every day human relations.

The Economics of rich and poor, the differentiation of religious teachings and practices and political norms, perpetuate and foster differentiation among people. This separation of individuals into groups makes it easy to develop stereotypes. These stereotypes are reflected when stigmatization and general statements are made about individuals. Religions preach adherence to one belief, creed and doctrine and in so doing encourages differentiation. Take for example the idea of one true religion, following one true god, yet most religions fight against each other.

Individuals are judged based on wealth and status and the political structure is primarily based on which party you support. People are either with you or against you. Associating people by groups therefore comes natural, and people use it on an everyday basis to judge people. Stereotypes affect how we judge others and ultimately influence how we interact with people.

A housewife, a civil servant or a teenager are groupings which a familiar and prevalant in all socities and there are common stereotypes which are associated to these groups off the bat. Civil servants get an easy ride and one would probably believe that, all teenagers are troublemakers and that all senior citizens are terrible drivers. Society upholds and practices the status quo of using a flawed but intrinsic decision making process to judge other individuals. The structures within our of society and our daily practices and actions, facilitate and support this process.

Modern politics encourage definition of groups in an effort to gain political clout, take for example the abortion debate, which seeks to put people into two distinct groups, one is either pro life or a baby killer. It is wrong and divisive but it works. Economical separation is evident in class association where the richer individuals of society associate with each other in Golf clubs and private schools.
This separation of people into groups is most visible along racial lines, people are grouped black, white, red and yellow skin complexions however it is part of a greater societal norm of grouping and stereotyping. This creates an atmosphere of them and us have and have not’s, Christian and Islamic, upper-class and underclass.

This need to group people seems to be a constant part of human relations. It is safe to say that the rat race is as much a pack race. Until individuals refrain from using gender, sexual orientation, class or race as a measure for making character judgments all forms of decisions will be prejudiced and probably based on a stereotype. People judging people based on race, income, ethnic or geographical related stereotypes.

The Cost of Free Trade

A free market and Free Trade may not be the way to the planet’s economic well-being because some nations have lost more than they have gained under the International Free Market system. Developed nations have benefited although some complain of loosing jobs from outsourcing to developing countries. Developed nations have registered considerable gains from trade but the majority of the worlds developing nations have lost under the agrigultural rules.

The General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs was modified into the free trade agreement in am effort to facilitate international free trade among the world’s nations. It was proposed that by breaking down barriers and stabilizing trade rules among nations, Economic Development for all participating nations would be assured. The first sector to be liberalized would be agricultural. The effects of the liberalization of agricultural trade have more drastically impacted developing countries as compared to developed nations.

The African, Caribbean and Asian countries, like the Eastern Caribbean Islands were heavily dependent on Agricultural For many like the Oecs States being Mono Cropping Economies were depedent mainly on Agrigulture as thier primary industry. On becoming signatories to the free trade agreement, many of these nations have complained of unfair practises by developed nations, such as agricultural subsidies and a i n general an uneven economic playing field.

Developed nations have an absolute advantage in almost all economic endeavours. Companies from developed nations invest a lot of resources on Trade Lobbyists. Some companies spend more money than some small nations GDP on lobbyists, resources which can not be matched by Developing Nations. This is a clear example or the uneven nature of the economic system.

The liberalization of agricultural trade has grossly negatively impacted the developing countries as compared to Developed Nations. Many nations are daunted by the economic hardships they suffer from the agriculture trade initiatives. The Developed nations are pressing to begin discussions on liberalizing financial services and other trade sectors and the promised gains from agicultural trade liberalization has not been realized as a matter of fact they have suffered.

Although there are many domestic hindrances, like government corruption which prevents Free Trade from being beneficial to many Developing Nations, outside influence on government also occurs. Proxy wars like that over the Suez Canal and Mercantilist escapades have now become defunct strategies, ounce utilized by developed nations but the thrust to realize economic gains by Developed Nations are now camouflaged in the form of capital imperialism.

Economic Growth should translate into Economic Development and into Gains that impact a wide cross section of a countries National Economy. Although the Frazier Institute, Two Thousand and Three report states, “that Globalizing developing countries recorded grater economic growth than rich countries”, however the gap between rich and poor nations are rising and in the year two thousand the developing countries had three fourths of the worlds population and only one quarter of the worlds income.

A free market system has been proven to be the best way to achieve economic growth and development, however those gains seem to be benifitting the developed nations of the world at the expense of the poor nations. The countries of Western Europe, Japan, Canada, The United States and Australia have traditionally been considered the epitome of Developed Countries.And while Free trade initiatives were touted as the great equalizer , which woul;d enable poorer nations to elevate thier status the results have not supported this. The systems employed to ensure economic prosperity, does not take into account equity within and across nations. A few benefit while the majority do not get a fair shake from international economic trade.

Human Rights and The big Economic Stick

Upholding basic human rights is considered an important criterion for having diplomatic relations with other sovereign states. Although a prerequisite such as that is a favourable requirement when carrying out diplomatic relations, trade embargoes or sanctions against countries for human rights abuses is however not a proficient practice. Stifling the economic flows of a country has its proven merits in affecting commerce but it disproportionately hurts the victims of so human right abuse as comapored to the effects they have on the perpetuators.

There are clear parameters contained within human rights charters and declarations such as that adopted on December tenth nineteen forty eight by the United Nations general assembly. The right to life and self determination are consider to be two of the basic and universals human rights but these are still considered to be ideals and countries are free to perceive and administer them differently.

Judging cultures based on western criteria may in itself present problems. The remedies geare towards solving a problem in a certain society must be compatible to the cultural zeitgeist of the particular society. Human rights ideals are aligned to the western concept of capitalist goals of freedom of choice. There are many positive capitalist ideals that are universally beneficial in terms of human rights. The western concept of human rights may clash with non western ideologies and cultures, sometimes considered inhumane when being judged from a western perspective of right and wrong. This ethnocentric view impairs judgement of the cultural practices and may lead to alien solutions which are not compatible to the local situation.

Sovereign states may differ in their judgements on what constitutes human rights abuse. South Africa maintained an apartheid system until nineteen ninety. Nelson Mandela after being released from jail became the first person of African decent to be the head of government in the country. Trade sanctions were placed against South Africa. But it took a while before the apartheid system crumbled probably more from internal resistance as was from international pressure.

The actions of certain states may appear to be breaching human rights themselves, and yet they sit in judgement of other states cultures and practices and governments. Powerful countries with hegemonic sway may use economic and other forms of leverage against other countries while they are defiling human rights ideals themselves. The United States admonishes the Cuban government for human rights and the its former UN Ambassador Mr Bolton objected to the inclusion of Cuba and certain other nations on the human rights committee, according to a human rights watch report the United States was at the same time grossly negligent of prisoner’s human right,taking place on Cuban soil at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

The people who are exposed to human rights abuses are usually the poorest and most destitute of societies, by using economic leverages like sanctions it is usually the poorest people of the state who are harmed. Human rights should be governed by principles based on social goals. The economic logic of efficiency over equity should not determine human rights ideals and policy. Nor does economic sanctions, help in bringing human rights to the people.

The Cold War is Over but The Frost Remains

As a child I never liked playing chess, I found it boring and I could not sit still long enough to play a whole game. However I have come to enjoy playing and chess is a great game that teaches strategy. At first chess like politics can appear haphazard and confusing but it is a game of pure strategy that forces you to plan and project possible scenarios. In International relations like chess it requires a lot of strategic resourcefulness. A good strategist must be able to change with the tide. The relationship that Cuba and America have shared has not been amicable. With President Obama in the white house America and Cuba have a unique opportunity at present, a chance to engage in a new era of diplomatic and economic relations. Moving forward both America and Cuba will greatly benefit from such closer relations.

It will require goodwill from both sides for America and Cuba to develop such a relationship.Cuba sits directly on the doorstep of a vast and great market, an economical space that is the USA yet it does not benefit form such close proximity. To think that America will continue to maintain tough economic pressures on Cuba is saddening. Cuba belatedly awaits and needs the benefit that comes with having access to the powerful American market hopefully even being on the the proverbial preferred traders list. For its part America can make significant diplomatic waves in the region and afar if it lets go of the past and proceeds to win over those governments in South and Central America and Cuba.

In 1959 America was put on high alert while Soviet Union ships approached Cuba.It was suspected and feared that these ships were carrying missiles to be placed on Cuban soil. In many ways this crisis framed the present unfriendly relations between America and Cuba. While it was a strategically brilliant move by Fidel Castro,to align with the the former Soviet-Union,in a bid to prevent American invasion, it also cause an economical embargo which has lasted throughout the cold war and continues presently.

The threat of soviet missiles based within striking distance of America never materialized because of an American naval blockade, and frantic diplomatic maneuvering. However the Fidel Castro led revolution brought America to the cusp of war and sparked a dangerous situation of diplomatic brinkmanship. During the time that followed, Cuba was faced economic embargoes and faced an understandably irate neighbour not at all supportive of the government.

The Venezuelan president, a populist leader Hugo Chavez, follows in the footsteps of former Cuban president Fidel Castro, The former considers the later as an idol. President Chavez has on numerous occasions accused the US of trying to destabilize his duly elected government and thereby his country. He asserts the right to self determination and non interference in a sovereign states affair. In recent times he has began to bolster the Venezuelan military dramatically increasing spending.
Cuba, Guyana and Venezuela all have recently sought to develop ties with Iran a country that America is at odds with over its pursuit for nuclear technology and is contemplating imposing some economic pressure upon if it seeks to militarize this nuclear technology.

Recently the American president signed a deal with Russia that they may each cut by 33% their nuclear arsenals. This undertaking bringing into perspective the changes that have happen since the Cuban missile crisis. It seems appropriate that Cuba and America ratchets down the animosity and begin to work together.

In his famous speech entitled “History will absolve me” Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro referred to America as being run by gringos, who treats their own people of African descent differently, so why should America genuinely have theirs, the Cuban people’s best interest at heart. We are long past the Cuban revolution; past the cold war and America today has a proud president who has an African father.

With a President in the white house with a black father introduces the prospect that the people of the Caribbean, South and Central America will be more open even to the extent of expecting him to somehow be able to identify with them. The president of the United States and his government thus has a chance to capitalize on that and move the narrative forward. And lay the foundation for a new era in the 21st century of diplomatic relations with Cuba and the Caribbean and the Americas

Many populist governments have been able to capitalized on their peoples mistrust of American intentions in the region. With the Cuban revolution being used as a beacon for self determination, governments such as Venezuela and Cuba continue to allude to American has imperialist intentions.

The Cuban government and the Venezuelan government have been accused of heavy handedness towards certain media. I can see why governments may be weary of those who may be against their points of views aptly labelled American propaganda. Or stating that outside influence is trying to trying to destabilize them for their selfish gains. I am sure that there are many who would rather Cuban American relations remain rocky and would try to influence such outcomes, I don’t think that the media should be interfered with by the government however. Governments should try to stay away from censoring those who oppose their points of view or policies.

Cuba should take the first step and initiate the change,what would happen if the Cuban government suddenly started to release political prisoners, it would definitely change the game. The leadership of Cuba made a bold and strategic move, when it engaged with the former Soviet Union during the revolution. Cuba now needs to change with the times and make a move towards the United States that shows it is ready to fully engage the US. Strategic maneuvering that America cannot denied or ignored. A bold and an open gesture towards engagement. A gestures of goodwill that precipitates reciprocate actions by America.

So while there may be Cuban inmates on hunger hunger strikes and accusations that some opinions are being stifled by government censorship, there exists a wonderful opportunity, in that hopefully the President of the United States of American the son of a European woman and an African man, named Barack Hussein Obama, who Grew up in Hawaii and lived in the Philippines for about four years, can somehow spark a new era of Cuban American relationship. if it does happen it is sure to have a redounding effect on the region and in international relations worldwide. This would be an instance where international relations strike a blow for diplomacy and the use of the carrot over the stick. If everyone were realist and placed their faith in the superiority of power and might over all else,then it would be a world that finds solace in perpetual anarchy.