Piata e un loc in care poti foarte bine afla starea natiunii. Poti trage niste calcule micro si macro economice destul de serioase. Ideea e sa fii empatic.
Plimbandu-ma printre tarabe, admirand varietatea de culori prezenta, dar si zambind atunci cand aud discutiile politice ale clientilor si vanzatorilor, ma opresc atunci cand imi doresc sa cumpar ceva. Dar nu ma limitez doar la atat. Ci intreb oamenii cum le merge. Cum se descurca. De unde isi iau produsele. Iar raspunsurile lor sunt uneori dramatice. Astfel, trecand peste articolele din revistele financiare, privitoare la starea agriculturii romanesti, ajung sa povestesc direct cu sursa. Imi vine un exemplu in minte, cu rosiile de Oltenia. Anume, am aflat ca acele rosii, la exterior rosii, dar in interior verzi, sunt asa fiindca se pune un praf peste ele, cand sunt inca necoapte, praf care le inroseste peste noapte. Nu sunt fan rosii, dar imi plac capsunile. Iar cand vad in piata "capsuni aromate", mari cat un pumn, lipsite de miros sau gust si imi aduc aminte ce capsuni gaseam la munte mai demult, mici si aromate, ma intreb ce contin. Oare cum au ajuns asa? Iar aspectul terifiant este ca aceste produse intra si se descompun in corpul nostru. Nu suntem deloc atenti la ce mancam. Introducem in corp o gramada de tampenii. Numeroase documentare arata clar unde se situeaza agricultura acum. Standardizarea impusa de UE determina o scadere drastica a calitatii alimentelor, pana in punctul in care acestea nu numai ca isi pierd valorile nutritive, dar devin periculoase.
In Romania ar putea fi un paradis al agriculturii traditionale, sau "Bio", "Eco", etc. Adica, ar reveni la ce a fost pana acum nu multi ani. Dar, cine doreste sa practice agricultura traditionala, adica fara Organisme Modificate Genetic (OMG), risca sa falimenteze. Ce mai, nu esti lasat sa le vinzi, daramite sa iesi la export. Se cauta fructele si legumele imense, merele "de ceara", fara viermi sau lovituri. Atunci, ce ramane de facut? Afli din piata ca nimeni nu sprijina aricultorii mici. Fondurile Europene sunt practic imposibil de accesat, datorita birocratiei si coruptiei. Lumea prefera de multe ori sa cumpere de la marii retaileri. Zilnic, daca merg in Auchan, vad o multime de oameni la raioanele de legume si fructe. Aceste produse nu sunt romanesti, chiar daca e sezonul lor. Dupa ce sunt trasportate sute si mii de kilometri, ce valoare nutritiva mai au?
De ce nu sprijinim producatorii romanesti? De ce acestia trebuie sa practice agricultura de subzistenta? Am putea fi o natiune extrem de competitiva pe partea agriculturii si a unor resurse naturale. Dar si pe alte planuri, cum ar fi energia regenerabila. Dar ce e de vina oare? Lipsa de informare sau confortul? Se zice la fiecare generatie noua ca e generatia care trebuie sa schimbe ceva. Intrebarea e: Se schimba ceva?
Va sfatuiesc sa fiti curiosi. Sa mergeti prin piete, unde inca mai puteti cumpara cateva alimente sanatoase. Vorbiti cu oamenii. Intrebati-i de sanatate. Va vor spune mult mai mult de-atat.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Seeing "no fly zone" through a student's eyes
In the last few weeks, the world has seen big events pile up. First, it was the crisis in North Africa and Mid East, and second, the earthquake in Japan followed by the Fukushima nuclear plant leakage. There is no doubt that both pose great threat to security, from different angles. But, nevertheless, one is caused by man, while the other is of natural origins. I shall refer here to a part of the Libyan crisis, and that is, the intervention of the western allies, under the "no fly zone" excuse.
Talking with some of my student colleagues, I wanted to hear what their points of view concerning this decision of Nato and the US were. Where we seemed to lack understanding was in the imposing of the so called "no fly zone" decision. I had some questions which I asked them:
1. What gives these countries the right to intervene in another country's internal affairs?
2. If the excuse is to protect civilians, why do they actually kill a lot of them?
3. If it's about imposing a "no fly zone", then what does that have to do with tanks, trucks and so on?
4. Why do these countries ignore similar situations, like Yemen?
Ok, so what gives these countries this right to intervene? The official version is under the pretext of saving civilians from Gaddafi's violent response. Ok, but as far as I see, these civilians who fight against Gaddafi are drunk with the taste of blood, and seem to want more. When you refere to "saving the Libyan nation", you usually think of all the population. Or, as far as I see, from an outsider's sources of information, there are also a lot of Gaddafi supporters. So, it's not the whole nation. Then, how do you decide which civilians are right? Isn't this a matter of internal affairs? Both parts are armed, but it's not like Gaddafi has only the army on his side, with no civilians whatsoever. this intervention creates precedents, allowing for future interventions wherever Nato and the US see fit.
Second, it about protecting civilians. Then why do you kill them? Why not go straight for Gaddafi and put an end to all of this? The coalition says that Gaddafi is not a target. Ok, then why bombard one of his command centers? If they would have killed him, would it have been an "Ups!" case? A collateral victim? And what gives anybody the right to decide which civilians can be killed? Since this happens inside a country, and there have been numerous such cases in history where there was no foreign intervention, other than humanitarian at most, what makes this one an exemption?
So, institute a no-fly zone. This basically means a territory over which aircrat are not permitted to fly, for the scope of protecting civilians. What does this then have to do with ground forces? I seldom heard of a tank firing at an airplane. Not to mention a truck. I also think it's quite difficult to throw a grenade at a stealth plane, or a high altitude bomber. I come back to the term "libyan nation" which, due to it's incorrect use, allows all sorts of violent actions.
I don't say that me or my colleagues support violent regimes. Far from that. But why are other similar situations ignored, or lesser handled? The Arab League and the African Union gave their support in the beginning, for imposing a no-fly zone. But now, the international response seems to completely disagree with such actions. Who has killed more civilians? Gaddafi's troups or the Coalition's? Who are the bad civilians?
And, last but not least, where does oil fit here? Or oil doesn't matter. Some weeks ago, Cuba's Fidel Castro predicted what would happen, saying that Americans will intervene, for the sole purpose of acquiring oil. Now, Americans gave full control of the operations to Nato. But who shall think that the USA has no benefit? Who will participate in the reconstruction of the country, in case Gaddafi's regime falls? What will happen to all that oil? The largest reserves in North Africa will just serve Libya and transform it into a second Dubai? I find that hard to believe.
As I came to a conclusion with my colleagues, we ended up admitting that whatever suppositions we make, they will never matter, not changing the course of history... For now.
Talking with some of my student colleagues, I wanted to hear what their points of view concerning this decision of Nato and the US were. Where we seemed to lack understanding was in the imposing of the so called "no fly zone" decision. I had some questions which I asked them:
1. What gives these countries the right to intervene in another country's internal affairs?
2. If the excuse is to protect civilians, why do they actually kill a lot of them?
3. If it's about imposing a "no fly zone", then what does that have to do with tanks, trucks and so on?
4. Why do these countries ignore similar situations, like Yemen?
Ok, so what gives these countries this right to intervene? The official version is under the pretext of saving civilians from Gaddafi's violent response. Ok, but as far as I see, these civilians who fight against Gaddafi are drunk with the taste of blood, and seem to want more. When you refere to "saving the Libyan nation", you usually think of all the population. Or, as far as I see, from an outsider's sources of information, there are also a lot of Gaddafi supporters. So, it's not the whole nation. Then, how do you decide which civilians are right? Isn't this a matter of internal affairs? Both parts are armed, but it's not like Gaddafi has only the army on his side, with no civilians whatsoever. this intervention creates precedents, allowing for future interventions wherever Nato and the US see fit.
Second, it about protecting civilians. Then why do you kill them? Why not go straight for Gaddafi and put an end to all of this? The coalition says that Gaddafi is not a target. Ok, then why bombard one of his command centers? If they would have killed him, would it have been an "Ups!" case? A collateral victim? And what gives anybody the right to decide which civilians can be killed? Since this happens inside a country, and there have been numerous such cases in history where there was no foreign intervention, other than humanitarian at most, what makes this one an exemption?
So, institute a no-fly zone. This basically means a territory over which aircrat are not permitted to fly, for the scope of protecting civilians. What does this then have to do with ground forces? I seldom heard of a tank firing at an airplane. Not to mention a truck. I also think it's quite difficult to throw a grenade at a stealth plane, or a high altitude bomber. I come back to the term "libyan nation" which, due to it's incorrect use, allows all sorts of violent actions.
I don't say that me or my colleagues support violent regimes. Far from that. But why are other similar situations ignored, or lesser handled? The Arab League and the African Union gave their support in the beginning, for imposing a no-fly zone. But now, the international response seems to completely disagree with such actions. Who has killed more civilians? Gaddafi's troups or the Coalition's? Who are the bad civilians?
And, last but not least, where does oil fit here? Or oil doesn't matter. Some weeks ago, Cuba's Fidel Castro predicted what would happen, saying that Americans will intervene, for the sole purpose of acquiring oil. Now, Americans gave full control of the operations to Nato. But who shall think that the USA has no benefit? Who will participate in the reconstruction of the country, in case Gaddafi's regime falls? What will happen to all that oil? The largest reserves in North Africa will just serve Libya and transform it into a second Dubai? I find that hard to believe.
As I came to a conclusion with my colleagues, we ended up admitting that whatever suppositions we make, they will never matter, not changing the course of history... For now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)