Hannah Yan | h_y@nus.edu.sg
the ridge news
A NUSSU Publication
Nov. 10, 2007
“You may be a reluctant globaliser, but you are a globaliser nonetheless,” said former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
He spoke to a full house at the National University of Singapore University Cultural Centre on Nov. 9.
Globalisation is the crux of his speech The Crisis in Global Governance: Challenges and Solutions. He gave examples such as the Kosovo Crisis, Asian Economic Crisis and the US sub prime market crisis to show how intricately connected the world is in today’s context.
“Globalisation is a fact. Opening up to it is the only sensible course,” Blair said.
“[We] have to come together to find the solutions. It is not simply idealism. It is 21st century realism,” he added.
Blair outlined six important challenges facing the world today: the economy, security issues, climate changes, energy, immigration and African issues.
He said migration is the “hottest” issue in Europe now. Problems such as social tensions and housing have arisen from this phenomenon.
Drawing his experience from 10 years of premiership in Britain and two times presidency in The Group of Eight, Blair said that there is a mismatch between the need for global solutions and the governments’ capacity to deliver such solutions.
In addition, he also said solutions cannot come from one nation or one institution alone.
For example, terrorism cannot be resolved only by security measures; the solutions lie in helping people of different faiths live together in harmony.
A global view is essential in order to help solve problems such as energy, climate changes and migration.
How can this be done? The solution is, according to Blair, a multilateral and multicultural approach.
“If we want to make it happen, we need a global agenda and the global agenda only works if there is a unifying set of global values,” he said.
In order to do so, he suggested reforming traditional institutions, building strong alliances and empowering civic society.
He recognized that the traditional institutions such as the United Nations and G8 are not as strong as they should be. While some problems are actually simple, some countries are reluctant to cooperate.
A global framework which allows differentiated conversations is needed. The framework also needs to take into account the different stages of economic development the countries are at.
According to him, strong alliances are important to solve problem. He talked about how Britain partners up with the USA and the European Union and is now deepening its relationship with China to better understand its economic developments.
Solutions need not come from government, but also from grassroots organizations. And these solutions may be the most effective ones.
He said campaigns such as Make Poverty History, offer not only practical solutions, but a different vision on how their countries can develop.
He also said that he would rather think of globalisation as an opportunity instead of a threat but people from different regions may view it differently.
According to him, the challenges are global in nature today and so are the solutions. To tackle the global challenges we need to embrace the global values.
[...] Tony Blair in NUS: Embrace global values [...]
This is a terrible article – rather than just relaying what Blair (a known ideologue who has taken Britain to war 6 times without the consent of its population) said, perhaps we should decontruct and analyse? Just a suggestion, I don’t want to think too far outside the box, but surely good journalism goes beyond simple regurgitation?
call it experimental journalism. news without a spin. fact as it is.
Hannah
facts as it is, up to readers to agree, or not.
the myth that so-called “facts” can exist without the ideological baggage of the author coming into play has been totally debunked in intellectual discourses over the last quarter century.
surely NUS students aren’t still hanging on to such dangerous and outdated ideas?
Dear Olly and Pia, Though personally I disagree with you, as I see no point of criticizing a retired man over a commissioned speech besides there is a need to tell the plain truth when all other publications are not doing so, I still took your comments as very good advice. Feel free to leave your criticism at any time.
Hannah
Olly and Pia, Pia and Olly, =)
I think what you mean, simply put, is that every article or piece of writing reflects the writer’s understanding of the issue, and hence may affect the angle it takes, or the issues it highlights.
However, that is not really relevant in a piece of reportive news. What the writer here is trying to say is that she is reporting what was said in as objective a manner as possible and through her writing, is inviting the reader to reflect on what Blair says.
Please save the tirade on ‘false’ ideologies on issues like capitalism, democracy and globalisation, issues that Blair has not sufficiently expanded upon in his speech. Instead, he has repeated what almost every well-informed individual already knows and offers little new insights on globalisation and its widespread effects across the strata.
What do you think about his speech?
Yati
We were trying to make the point that Blair is not just any ‘retired man’ reading a ‘commissioned speech’; he is a polarising figure with clear ideological aims and massive influence in contemporary global politcs. Thus to merely reiterate what he said, demonstrates a certain submissive credence, hid behind a curtain of objectivity. ‘Reportive’ news, contrary to what you might like to believe, is NEVER objective. The very fact that a reporter chooses to cover an event itself holds intellectual significance. The reporter’s choice to quote a politician and not a critic, a member of the elite instead of a member of the public, is itself privileging one viewpoint and one way of understanding politics. Your article was far from objective.
As politics and International relations majors, who read extensively on ‘globalisation’, we can honestly say that from what we’ve heard of the speech (we were not selected to attend!), it was literally one of the most vacuous and meaningless commentaries on the topic we’ve ever read. Half a million US dollars could have been put to better use.
If you’d like an article on the event that we have written for our University paper back home, please feel free to email us. It might be nice to see the whole thing from another, equally opinionated, perspective (and lend more credibility to your attempt at objectivity!)
P.S sorry for the beginning of the 1st comment – it was rude as we were angry!
I agree with your argument that his speech was vacuous. One might argue that his entire stance on certain issues such as the Irag war, labour management and economic policies during his term in office somewhat hover on the vacuous, ineffectual side.
“If we want to make it happen, we need a global agenda and the global agenda only works if there is a unifying set of global values,” he said.
In order to do so, he suggested reforming traditional institutions, building strong alliances and empowering civic society.
What kind of global values was not specified. I personally think the idea of ‘global values’ is improbable because of the vast differences in national agenda around the world, and that is not going to change. A global agenda in this world can only be driven by a single entity: money. The idea of reforming traditional institutions (in whose favour?) seems ideological, and does not address urgent issues like corruption and poverty.
In my opinion, he is suggesting that traditional institutions like the UN should be reformed as how the US and NATO think it should be reformed, and strong alliances are only within countries that conform to US ’sanctions’, excluding of course the famed Axis of Evil, and empowering civic society in a way that does not threaten the ruling organisation or coalition, if you may.
Blair did not address the crises of globalisation, nor did he expand on its challenges, much less provide viable solutions. It seemed to me that he was justifying his political ideologies when he was in office.
It’s cool that you’re offering to send a link to your article! Do email it to me and we’ll post it up online under “Your Shout!”.
Pia, how was the Asean Summit? =)
Now that’s interesting!
Don’t ridge readers want to hear these kinds of arguments? I would have found the original article far more engaging (and yes, objective) if all that insight had been included……….
and we never made it to the asean summit, of course. still, i think we got the point across.
i’d rather readers participate in the discussion rather than just read them. I’m very sure a lot of them out there have their own opinions to share.
i’m glad you managed to get your point across. Today’s papers didn’t seem very optimistic about the ‘family dinner’ that was meant to open up discussion about the Myanmar situation.
Sometimes family dinners need to get a bit heated.
Hi all,
I enjoy the verbal sparring and clash of minds. Please don’t stop =p and encourage more like minded ones to join in such stimulating discussions too!