News from Everywhere

No 377

18 April 2008

The Cold War has not gone away

The gradual thawing of relations between North Korea and the western world last year brought a greater hope of peace in North-East Asia, but food shortages in that country are still critical. Millions of people are affected, and the problem is exacerbated by the fact that its main food donors, China and South Korea, have said that they will only continue their aid on condition that North Korea dismantles its nuclear weapons programme.

More money is spent on weapons in North-East Asia than anywhere else in the world. The region has been described as the “heart of the global military-industrial complex”. The countries involved are China, Japan, the United States, Russia and North and South Korea. Between them they represent almost 70% of the world’s spending on weapons, currently in total around 1.5 trillion US dollars per year. And this expenditure is increasing.

There is in effect an arms race going on in the region, with more and more being spent on the military by the US and China, as well as by the smaller local players. As a consequence of its role in the 1939-45 war, Japan has since that time maintained a purely defensive military capacity, with relatively low spending on weapons, but it is now also being encouraged by the US to upgrade to a more ‘normal’ military force to provide a counter-balance to China’s expanding power.

Vast amounts of money are being spent on these growing geopolitical formations. New ‘blocs’ are being formed. China, Russia and a number of smaller states have formed a group called the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, while the United States is creating a circle of allies, including India and Japan and Australia to keep the balance of power. The quantity of weapons deployed in the region makes the situation potentially explosive, though the reason offered, similar to the Cold War rationale, is that peace will be maintained through a balance of force on both sides.

The weapons industry is thriving and is a major source of wealth for the main weapons-producing countries. But, it is also argued, millions of people in the world – including of course North Korea – are short of food; climate change demands research and funds; the gap between rich and poor is not closing, and, say critics, the new arms race is not only literally dangerous, but also a threat to humanity in that it diverts money and human effort away from other important needs. Why do you think that military confrontation and war still play such an important part in 21^st century spending, when the survival of the planet is in jeopardy?

[Sources: Inter Press Service – Global Issues: the Arms Trade]

A continuum of care

An international conference took place this week to address the fact that in numerous regions of the world many mothers, babies and small children are still dying through lack of the necessary care. Over 10 million women and children die each year for reasons which are mainly preventable. This does not mean that there has not been dramatic progress in recent times, but 97% of these deaths still occur in 68 poorer countries, where funding is urgently needed to meet these challenges.

One of the issues is that, very often, existing progress is happening because of the work of independent organisations, rather than the governments and health systems of the countries concerned. In order to establish efficient care provision, it is governments which have to make sure that their public health systems are strengthened, that there is equality of access for all, and that sufficient money is invested.

The main targets proposed at the conference were, first, improvement in family planning services and cheap, available contraception. Next, access to skilled care at birth: barely half of women in the 68 target countries have an experienced or qualified birth attendant, and many fewer have opportunities for care and advice before and after childbirth. There must also be clinical care available for sick children. There is often no treatment available for pneumonia, the biggest single killer of children. And, finally, mothers and children must be adequately nourished. Here, as elsewhere, food is the key to public health. Lack of proper nutrition is the underlying cause of 3.5 million child deaths each year, and up to 20% of maternal deaths.

The report prepared for the conference emphasised what it calls a ‘continuum of care’, which means that care should not just be provided at certain times or just at moments of crisis or special need: it should be there for everybody all the time. It emphasises that progress is being made, especially in areas such as immunisation and fighting malaria, but much more cash is required to subsidise the structures which governments need to provide the ‘continuum of care’. In some countries any progress made has been offset by the prevalence of AIDS/HIV, and the existence of armed conflict always has a negative effect on public health, most especially that of women and children. Does the ‘continuum of care’ exist in your country, and, if so, what are its main elements?

[Source: Countdown to 2015]

Not a cry but a scream

The Howard League for Penal Reform in Britain has protested robustly about the number of people who are harming themselves in prison. “When men, women and children in jail cut themselves and otherwise assault their own bodies, it is not a cry for help. It is a scream. How much longer before we realise that the national scandal happening behind bars has a direct impact on public safety and the healthiness of our society?”

The rate of self-injury has risen sharply in recent years and reflects, so they believe, the increase in numbers and the overcrowding of the prison population. But it also reflects the inadequacy of a system which uses prison as a way of dealing with “men, women and children whose mental health problems and addictions will never be properly treated within our flooded and failing jails”. Figures show that in 2003 there were just over 16,000 incidents of self-injury in prison, whereas in 2007 there were nearly 22,500. They go on to say that large numbers of prisoners, treated in this way, go on to reoffend when they are released, and that not only is this of no help to the people themselves, it does nothing to improve public protection in the longer term.

The Howard League highlights the case of one young woman who was placed in an adult women’s prison at 17. She had spent much of her life in care, had suffered severe mental health problems and a history of neglect and abuse. After incidents of self-injury and suicide attempts, she was kept in solitary confinement for several months. Thanks to efforts by the Howard League, she was subsequently moved from prison to a secure psychiatric environment in which she responded well to treatment. She is quoted as one of a number of cases, supported in this way, which show up the inadequacy of crowded prisons at meeting the needs of people whose severe social and mental health problems have led them to crime and self-harm. What kind of information or publicity do you think would help the public and their representatives understand better – and improve – the situation within the prison system at present?

United States military interrogations have come under scrutiny, especially since 9/11, with questions as to whether the techniques used amount to torture. There has also been debate as to whether medical personnel should play any part in these interrogations. Critics allege that psychologists have been used to advise on techniques which help to extract information and ‘break’ detainees so as to make them co-operate. The military argues that the presence of medical professionals helps keep these interrogations safe, and states that on occasion psychologists have intervened to prevent abuse.

The American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Psychiatric Association have already barred their members from taking any part in these processes on ethical grounds. The American Psychological Association (APA) has not done so. This has prompted debate within its ranks, which has led to a break-away group forming the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology, insisting that medical professionals should have nothing to do with extreme forms of interrogation.

The professional debate hinges on the word ‘coercive’. The AMA and the APA agree that they will not be involved with any procedure which involves torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, but the AMA also rejects those which are in any way ‘coercive’. The APA says is a difficult word to define, and that some normally accepted information-gathering processes are coercive in nature, especially when medical data is required relating to criminal law or to the allocation of benefits. They also argue that there is a duty not only to the detainee but also to the public, whose security may be safeguarded by obtaining the information required. So some of the key questions are still moot. How is inhuman or degrading treatment (or torture) to be defined? What kind of techniques should be described as ‘coercive’? Should medical people be involved at any point during interrogation procedures?

The Trades Union Congress has published a report revealing that, by age 30, most British women’s pay is below men’s of the same age, despite the fact that, at the moment when they leave school, young women’s qualifications are often higher and their pay superior to young men’s. Part of the reason, so many believe, is the so-called ‘motherhood penalty’. This means that, in British society, being a mother (in fact or to be) is a handicap which many women have to fight during their professional lives. Some also believe that commercial pressures – little girls encouraged to wear pink, play with Barbie dolls, and dress in prematurely sexualised clothes – dispose young women to a predetermined role in life, and that these pressures are becoming more rather than less intense. A recent report suggests that girls are becoming concerned about their appearance from an earlier age, and that this can affect their emotional life and their ability to do school-work. As society and the media become more sexualised, the ‘motherhood penalty’ becomes more severe and more subtle. How can young women be helped and encouraged to fight back against this handicap?