Do you? Did you? Who you?

This article is stylised in the format of three questions and aims to cover recent developments in the World Service.

Do you know what the World Service is?

Great, what an insightful question you just posed! However, if you are currently sneering because you already know then now is probably a good moment to move on to the section entitled ‘did you?’ Almost like walking into a seminar, deciding it wasn’t for you today, and relying on the readings to see you through.

So for us mere mortals the World Service is…

“The world's largest international broadcaster, broadcasting news, speech and discussions in 28 languages to many parts of the world on analogue and digital shortwave platforms, internet streaming, podcasting, satellite, FM and MW relays. The World Service was reported to have reached 188 million people a week on average in June 2009. It does not carry advertising, and the English language service broadcasts 24 hours a day.”

Right now, they are airing an insightful documentary on crypto wars which happens to be an interesting area of development for the future of security studies… just in case you were wondering.

However, the most important provision it provides is independent news to many states that have strict laws on media. For instance, if you happened to be in Zimbabwe right now, where all broadcasters transmitting from Zimbabwean soil, and many of the main newspapers, toe the government line, you would be able to get the world service.

It’s the BBC to the rest of the world that provides a forum for discussion and information.

The BBC of the world

Did you know that the World Service is paid for by your TV license?

Before yesterday the World Service was funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). After all it was a tool to increase the recognition of the British across the world.

However, now the World Service is funded by the BBC.

Who you?

So what do you think? Is it okay that the BBC has taken on the role of the Foreign Office considering the recent cuts to BBC Three? Simply, the government has pushed the cost on to us to cut budgets in the FCO.

Personally, I think it is okay. Not that the government has pushed the cost on to the BBC but that international media is a long-term business and should benefit from the consistency the organisation has promised to provide. Whilst under the FCO the World Service lost around 14 million people as it dropped 5 languages due to budget cuts – not cool guys. It is the World Service’s ability to provide valuable news to those who may not have the right to understand why their states act the way they do that substantiates its existence. If we are committed to democracy then it should remain.

When I come to pay my TV licence I would have no issue in £10 of it going to help support this valuable service. I appreciate that a service that benefits others may not be preferential in such economic conditions but surely its worth looking beyond our current situation.

Help keep the megaphone for the voices of the world going and commit to the continued existence of the World Service.

Thoughts?

MINT beats BRIC

For all those investors out there you probably already know but there are some new players on the global market who are beginning to throw their weight around. It is the year of the MINT not the BRIC. I am not going crazy (yet), BRIC actually stands for Brazil, Russia, India and China and for the past years they have been growing exponentially and dominating the markets. The term was invented by this guy…

Jim O'Neill, retiring chairman of Goldman Sachs

So what is with all this MINT? MINT resembles Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey and these are the new states tipped to go big by our trusted economist Jim.

China has always, in my relatively little understanding of the world, been a big player in the production world and pretty much everything is made by it. However, recently America has started to pull out of China as its currency strengthens and its one-child policy causes an increase in wages due to a limit pool of workers. What makes the MINT states important is that they stand between the trading routes of the world (minus Nigeria), have a large working population and are taking advantage of their raw resources.

You only have to look at this graph that the BBC posted to realise that though China still takes the top spot the MINT countries will have jumped up the rankings by 2050.

Moreover, it is positive for the environment in that it may cut down air/sea miles as trade becomes closer to its intended destination.

And plus these guys know how to party! To be accepted into the Mexican community you need to learn how to dance and the local language. Furthermore, when Jim O’Neil suggested he should move to Mexico they said they would get English beers brought over and plumbed in. You cannot say no.

Investors watch out!

If you want to listen to the full podcast click here. Also there will be podcasts on Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey throughout this week on Radio 4 or catch it on the BBC website.

Before investing millions on the expert opinion (I offer no professional advice so do not blame me if things turn sour) presented in this blog give this article by Chris Wright a read.

Syria and the Global Arms Trade

In the run up to Christmas we are all frantically buying presents for loved ones, ensuring deadlines are complete so we can avoid thinking about them, and becoming a little more focused on ourselves and our families. 

There is nothing wrong with that. In fact we deserve a break! Or certainly I will admit I need one!

But, as we prepare to celebrate another Christmas and hunker down it was strange to hear that yesterday the BBC launched a series of reports on the Syrian conflict to mark its third year - almost like a birthday? Oddly it seems like only yesterday that fifteen children in Deraa wrote anti-government graffiti and the subsequent violence started.

After three years of fighting, what can we infer from the situation? 

Well it is rather stale… in fact it is a stalemate.

That does not mean that fighting is not occurring but rather that rebels will take one area for it to be only retaken by government forces and vice versa.

Sustained firefights on the streets of Aleppo. Credit: James Lawer Duggan

Concerning the BBC report it concluded that the influence of external powers will be the deciding factor in this conflict; an observation that could be drawn from most, if not all, armed conflicts in this present age. Cheers for that BBC… we do indeed live in a globalised world so external powers are bound to take an interest and have an influence.

Conversely, in  studies on the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) major scholars in democratisation such as Diamond, Linz and Lipset (1996) exclude the MENA  states from their studies as they “lack much democratic experience, and most appear to have little prospect of transition to even semi-democracy”. This lack of democracy simply makes this region even more interesting to external powers as it is so volatile. Volatility means vast amounts of money and where there is money there is bound to be trouble.

So, let us have a quick look at how have the external powers influenced Syria recently?

• They have given non-lethal aid to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) but due to the Islamic Front taking FSA bases in Bab al-Hawa the aid has stopped to this region.
• Aid for refugees and those suffering from the now crippling winter has been provided. Though it is risky for aid workers to complete their jobs.

This aid seems rather cautious and concerned with the people of Syria’s welfare. However, underneath this bubble of aid lies a more sinister trade, the arms trade. If external powers are not involved in this then… well we all know they are.

So what makes weapons profitable?

• Their durability.
• The ease with which actors can locate ammunition. Obviously finding ammunition for an AK47 is easier than another rarer or outdated rifle. 
• They are fungible and interchangeable.
• They retain their value
• Conflict seems to be a constant at this present moment so someone will always want to buy them

Read this article here for a more in-depth understanding and an overview of the arms trade.

Vast stockpiles of weapons in unstable states. See this article on the arms trade in Latin America.

Who is supporting who?

• Russia and Iran are supplying the Assad regime
• External powers such as America are not explicitly trading arms but are facilitating the transfer of arms from Libya to Syria rebels. The logic is that the more weapons fired at Assad means fewer weapons in the hands of militants in North Africa. Sound logic.

Furthermore, if you watch ‘Holidays in the Danger Zone - The Violent Coast: Liberia and Sierra Leone’ by Ben Anderson (I would recommend his documentaries) about sixteen minutes in he finds an RPG-7 provided by a British Arms Manufacturer despite the arms embargo on Liberia. Thus, as Western powers attempt to reduce conflict in developing states it is worth considering how they might be sustaining them or profiteering from them.

Nonetheless, they are playing a game which all foreign powers play from Pakistan to China to Russia and consequently for them to be involved, no matter how irresponsible, might help to prevent certain powers from dominating the international sphere.

I would argue that all should be aware of this practice but that preventing the arms trade presents a conundrum needing international cooperation. Calling for the West to stop trading arms could lead, however inhuman this appears, to worse atrocities. If both sides are armed then a realist state of deadlock may emerge. Though, if this is broken after sustained vertical proliferation, and with more weapons available, the conflict could be prolonged. It is a difficult situation.  

Therefore, as we spend Christmas buying lots of presents lets us take a minute to think about the way in which armed forces throughout the world are able to buy their ‘presents’ this Christmas. I urge you to consider the arguments, research the subject and form your own opinions on this important matter.

Resources used (if not already linked):

Diamond, L., Linz, J. J. and Lipset, S. M. (1995) Politics in Developing Countries: Comparing Experiences with Democracy. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.