In his narrative "Safe Area Gorazde," Joe Sacco uses a comic book style to present his argument. This uncoventional method however, works perfectly and, in my mind, has only strengths. One might think a comic book, in its very definiton, could dismiss the main argument of a narrative as just a story, just pictures. However, Sacco manages to rise above this dismissal and presents a clear-cut, resolute argument with a personable, visual aid. He manages to make a comic book more than just a story with pictures.

The fact that Sacco is able to accurately represent each character's unique background and provide the exact details of the people he writes about allows us as readers to connect to each character on a very personal level, therefore making the despicable crimes they were victimized by that much more heart-wrenching. As I read, I felt myself standing in Sacco's shoes, living in Edin's house, listening to Riki's singing, taking orders for Levi's from the women, and hearing and seeing the terrifying effects of ethnic cleansing on Yugoslavia. Seeing the people's faces, REAL people that I know Sacco spoke to, made me feel like I was part of this story. This effect could not have been achieved without the comic book style of the narrative.

Furthermore, Sacco's use of the comic book presents the story in the ironic way it needs to be presented in order to stir people up they way they should be about such a devastating issue. Tradionally, comic books have been used for mindless tales of super heroes and other such trivialities. However, Sacco's narrative is about an issue that is nothing but trivial - though some Americans may see it that way. On page 53, a woman asks Sacco if people know about the tragedies of Gorazde in America. He lies and says yes. I think in a way this is the thesis of Sacco's entire narrative. People in America just don't know about what's happening in Gorazde. To way too many people, it is just a trivality. And it shouldn't be this way. Sacco uses the comic book to prove to people that what they are treating as a triviality, isn't. It is a serious, crushing, unbelievably sad issue.

There are real people behind the crimes of ethnic cleansing. People with stories, histories, and emotions. People who soak up American magazines and songs, demand American clothes, work to get degrees, go to school, etc. Sacco shows all of this with his personal interview and interactions, and with every frown line and crease on the faces of the characters he draws. He draws violent imagery in a comic book style, drawings that make one feel sick to the stomach. But he gets his point across. People in America don't pay enough attention to the violence going on around the world. Too much is written off as "Oh it's going on over there, so I don't need to worry about it." Sacco shows that yes, everyone does need to worry about it. He presents horrors such as people getting their throats cut or being thrown off a bridge as just one more square in a huge comic book, an ironic but effective way of presenting his argument. The ethnic cleansing that went on in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s and that still goes on today in some parts of the world are huge parts of who we are as humanity, and should not be written off. People treat these disasters as just stories, just single squares in a comic book. But they aren't. They are serious and horrifying.

In my last post, I touched briefly upon the idea that several African nations are deciding to reject American GM corn products due to a fear that if they do so, Europeans will cease trade with them. In this post I am going to try to figure out where this fear has come from and just how reliant Africa is on its trade with Europe.

Since the introduction of GM crops, especially by major US companies such as Monsanto, there has been controversy between the EU and the US. A series of food crises in the 1990s heightened European consumer apprehension of food and food safety, and of government oversight of industry in general. One can imagine then, that with the GM crop craze, Europeans in general have been wary of their safety. (Source translated from French). Consumers demand the right to know where the food comes from, and whether or not their food has been genetically modified. Therefore, the EU has begun to enforce strict regulations that demand labeling and origin tracing for all food products containing more than 0.5% GM ingredients. In fact, in 2003 the European Parliament introduced the Committee on the Environment, Public Health, and Food Safety proposal in order to set such labeling and tracing regulations into law. The United States disagrees with these regulations because they feel that they hinder free trade - however the EU demands consent in the realm of free trade. Clearly food awareness is a serious concern for Europeans, in that two European countries, Germany (81%) and France (89%), rank highest for the percent of people in any one nation who believe GM crops to be bad.

Now, on to African reliance on European countries for trade. Cape Verde relies on Europe for 80% of its revenues. Ghana for 75%. And these figures are only going up. Trade between these two continents has grown so much that the EPAs between the two (Economic Partnership Agreements) must be modified so that the development of certain African nations is not hindered by too high of a reliance on European markets. Africans who grow genetically modified crops or feed their animals with genetically modified feed are not likely to have much success trading their products with Europe due to the wariness of its consumers. And so, African nations continue to reject the potential famine-reducing crop in a desperate attempt to continue economic relations with Europe. Though, not so strong as to destroy development - a happy medium.

My point is: The EU has made its position on labeling and food tracing quite clear, and crops that are grown this way or animals fed this way in African nations that rely on Europe for trade are not going to be as heavily accepted by Europeans as other, more organic products. Therefore, Africa continues to reject American GM corn despite the fact that it could put an end to hunger.

In commencing my study of this topic, one of my primary questions was: Why are third world countries with extreme starvation, like Zambia and Zimbabwe, banning trade offers of GM corn from the United States? An article I found, titled "Famine-stricken Countries Reject GM Maize" by James Njoroge details the banning of these crops in these two specific countries, and offers two distinct reasons for the rejection.

Reason 1 - Scientific uncertainty. Zambia (2.3 million people starving) banned GM corn, according to minister for agriculture, Mundia Sikatana, because it could not "risk the lives of its people." Zambia felt that it needed the assurance of local scientists on the safety of these crops, since they do not have the proper safety-assessing technology to test it themselves that richer nations such as South Africa do have, before accepting a US loan to buy these US manufactured products. Representaives from USAID (US Agency for International Development) argue that the corn has been through intensive scans in the US and that there is no way to trade maize without genetic modification. Zimbabwe, a country with an even more severe starvation crisis with 3 millin people going hungry, also rejected the product claiming that it lacked safety certification.

Reason 2 - Trade with European Countries Could Suffer. As I have mentioned earlier in this blog, European countries are placing bans right and left on GM crops manufactured by the US. A lot of Zimbabwe and Zambia's economic revenue comes from trading with these countries. These countries are concerned that if they plant genetically modified food, it will not only harm their citizens, but it will also get into the systems of their animals. And the meat of these animals is what they trade with Europe. Zimbabwe and Zambia fear that Europe will reject the meat from animals that have fed off this crop, due to their very own misgivings against the product. Local researchers in Zimbabwe have assured that accepting GM maize "could jeopardise the country's beef markets in Europe and elsewhere."

So, I conclude, Europe's decisions seem to have a huge influence on the poorer countries that rely on its trade. Perhaps Zambia's and Zimbabwe's decisions to ban GM maize was made more out of economic concerns than scientific concerns. Either way - it is more business with Europe, and less with the United States.

The article "How to Judge Globalism" by Amartya Sen, pages 9-24 in The Globalization Reader, edited by Frank J. Lechner and John Boli, discusses the benefits and downfalls of globalization. Globalization has several benefits which, for the most part, outweigh its issues. Globalization is increasing efficiency and therefore aiding millions to "leap ahead" and propser. It also provides a chance to expand the idea of liberty and allow the individual to gain more rights. For example, globalization curtails governmental power. Individuals in business can expand their trade by moving business abroad and offering services to a broader market. This doesn't put a complete stop to the government's power - but it provides the individual with more of a chance to pursue liberty.

Technology also is providing a huge service to globalization as the Internet and cell phones can send signals and information across oceans in a matter of seconds. This provides a pathway to the people with the drive to work hard - it opens up a whole new world in which to create a business outside of just the national market. This, furthermore, gives people the ability to define their own identities and tastes. In this way, globalization stresses individuality over homogenization, as some critics suggest due to the massive companies that service countries all over the world, such as McDonald's.

On this note, a lot of critics say that globalization is just Westernization under a different name. Admittedly, some companies are trying to do this. A perfect example is Monsanto, a company that is working to twist consumer preferences by using the language barrier. However, over and over, farmers are finding themselves disappointed and without the success that Monsanto promised - because Monsanto knew it was lying. It used globalization to push a lie.

Despite this example, the majority of globalization exists outside of this "Western curse." Interrelations have helped advance countries all over the world. And these advancements are not just the West helping the rest of the world. As Lechner and Boli point out, the decimal system we use today was used before in both India and Arab civilizations. Globalization and technology take their influences from all over the world, not just the West.

Monsanto fabricates the facts

Before I get into any more specific case studies on countries, such as the story I posted last week about Germany, I am going to delve slightly into a corporation I have already mentioned called Monsanto. According to Wikipedia, Monsanto sells 90% of the world's genetically modifided seed. As countries one by one have discovered the fabrications in the facts Monsanto posts about its products, they have banned the company's products, and therefore harmed trade relations.

Monsanto's claim is that its products increase crop yield, and are therefore extremely beneficial to countries suffering from extreme famine. However, as New Delhi policy analyst, Devinder Sharma, examines in his column "Do GM Crops Increase Yield?", much of Monsanto's claims have been barefaced lies. Monsanto has claimed that its products increase yields in several countries, when really it is merely taking advantage of the average person's ignorance of scientific terminology to distort the facts. Monsanto's claim is this: herbicides, such as Genuity or Roundup Ready, increase crop yield. However, as Sharma points out, these chemicals work only to reduce crop losses - they do not increase the actual yield. Furthermore, Monsanto has used its terminology to successfully ensure that all other brands of herbicide are removed from the market, as it has skewed customer preferences, through LIES, towards its own products.

Monsanto's myth has, in fact, driven desperate farmers in other countries to suicide - some Indian farmers have even killed themselves by drinking gallons of the product Roundup Ready. The farmers are angry that Monsanto has coaxed them into buying its products and its products only (pushing other less expensive herbicides out of the market, as I mentioned) and that the chemicals that were claimed to increase crop yield have not done so.

My point is that Monsanto has convinced the world that its products can do things they can't. This is especially so in the case of genetically modifided corn, one of the most highly banned GM crops worldwide. More and more countries are becoming aware of Monsanto's fabrications, the reality of its products, the damage it has done on peoples' lifestyles, and its INABILITY to follow through with its claim: an end to famine.

Parallels between two eras of globalization

In his article "Sinking Globalization", Niall Ferguson makes several interesting points, points which made me think about things I haven't thought about before. He begins his article by saying that he will be drawing comparisons between the previous and the present eras of globalization. The first era, as he explains, lasted from 1870 through WWI when the sinking of the Lusitania ended it. WWI ruined the highpoints of this first era of globalization as protectionism caused countries to retreat away from the global marketplace. Ferguson explains that this end of globalization was "not unforseeable" as many countries strived for autarky. He then goes on to explain that this end of globalization ended up causing the stock market crashes of the Great Depression. Call me stupid, but I have never thought about the market crashes as having anything to do with globalization before - but it seems so obvious now.

Ferguson then makes a disturbing comment by claiming that today's global marketplace is "no more stable than the system that preceded World War I." This argument ends up serving as the basis for the rest of the article. As Ferguson explains the instability of the modern international monetary system, I learned more and more about how reliant the US is on other countries. I did not know before that US net overseas liabilities were so high.

This deficit makes globalization "susceptible to the international transmission of crises" - just like it was pre-1914. Ferguson's point is that we do not know when we will face the consequences of this susceptibility. We are not prepared for the worst, just as those in the first era weren't either.

We don't know what will happen, and the chance of impending crisis scares me. Whether it was his intent or not, Ferguson's article has had an effect on me, in that I am now nervous for the uncertainity of the future we are entering into.

Kishore Mahbubani's "The Case Against the West"

In his article, "The Case Against the West", Kishore Mahbubani attempts to prove that the West is a major source of many of today's global issues. Mahbubani believes that the West is unable to accept the inevitable rise of the "Asian century" and that in this fight against change, the failures of the West have grown increasingly more commonplace in today's world. For example, in the case of the war in Iraq, the West is unable to see that sometimes Western actions can cause more harm than good. The West went into Iraq expecting the Iraqi people to be waiting with their arms open to be rescued. As Mahbubani writes, this entire notion was "ridiculous." Furthermore, the West broke the theory of international law by using force in a situation that was not defined as an act of self-defense or approved by the UN Security Council. What Mahbubani expresses that he doesn't understand is how a well-developed country based on the idea of individual advancement and freedom can expect to rule over other countries and apply the same government rule abroad. The West cannot do it all, and taking on too many issues has lead to several mismanagements. It is here that the ability for Asian countries to step up has taken place. Since the West cannot manage everything, other Asian countries such as China have used elements of Western policy in their own systems to attempt to take responsibility for many world issues.

Right here is where in my opinion, Mahbubani has erred. He even admits that the West cannot take on all these issues at the same time. So why is he criticizing the West for failing, if he knew it was inevitable? His writing almost seems to express, in places, that he expects the West to take responsibility for several of these issues, while at the same time he knows they can't. It's unrealistic and hypocritical. For example, Mahbubani writes that the West is "failing to take a lead on battling global warming." He backs up his claim that the West should take charge of environmental issues by saying that anything dealing with the commons should be under the care of wealthier nations. This seems so hypocritical! How can he say that China and other countries are trying to rise up and take responsibility for world issues and accuse the West of not letting them, but then try to assign MORE work to the West? He is saying the West fails at what it does, so why is he trying to pile on more work? Why can't China and other Asian countries take responsibility for these issues? Just because China contributes less toxic emissions than the US doesn't mean the environment isn't important to the Chinese also.

Mahbubani accuses the West of not welcoming Asia's rise in the modern world. How can they welcome the rise of other countries, when he and so many others are still pressuring them to take responsibility for global warming, and other issues? How can the West be expected to manage things, and yet still relinquish power?

On a side note: In my last post, I briefly mentioned the American GM crop company, Monsanto. In upcoming posts, I will discuss Monsanto's effect on the world. America is using Monsanto to trade GM corn with other countries. However, many countries are rejecting the corn because of the environmental problems associated with it. Mahbubani would probably argue, with relation to this topic, that America is unthinkingly forcing faulty products on other countries - products which harm them, and that the West is causing more harm than good. Is this true? Stay tuned to find out.

According to New York Times article Germany Bars Genetically Modified Corn, German agricultural minister, Ilse Aigner, feels that genetically modified corn produced by American company Monsanto presents an environmental risk. Aigner's belief represents that of many European citizens, proving that Europe is one of the most skeptical markets for genetically modified crops. People are concerned for their safety, and although Aigner claims her decision to ban GM maize is "not a political [one]," the blow to Monsanto will damage German-American trade relations.

The article goes on to explain that the European Comission has been pushing Europeans to ease up on their skepticism and allow "greater quantities of low cost foods" (the main benefit of GM crops in the first place) to be grown in Europe. Germany's decision has been reflected by other European countries such as France and Luxembourg, and will continue to influence others as the world continues further into the Green Revolution.