Premium
This is an archive article published on January 29, 2005

Beseiged, at Davos

This year at the World Economic Forum8217;s annual meeting, did the Davos Men and Women really sound a little more beseiged?Anti-globalisat...

.

This year at the World Economic Forum8217;s annual meeting, did the Davos Men and Women really sound a little more beseiged?

Anti-globalisation has had unmistakable new recruits, uncomfortably closer to home. A backlash against the global elite can be seen in the advanced economies, noted Time this week. The 8216;8216;Davos Man8217;8217; is under growing attack in America for being part of a class of people who, as Harvard Professor Samuel P. Huntington described them, 8216;8216;have little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles that thankfully are vanishing, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function is to facilitate the elite8217;s global operations8217;8217;.

The famous professor maintains that the Davos Man8217;s self-image as someone who transcends national boundaries is the source of a great and growing 8216;8216;disconnect8217;8217; with his fellow citizens. The simmering discontents in the US over outsourcing to Asia point to the new faultlines.

But defenders of globalisation in the rich countries and those who are anxious about dissolving national identities mustn8217;t lose heart. The dreaded India-China takeover of the world simply may never come about, for one. Then, as Time helpfully offered, 8216;8216;it8217;s also entirely possible that the near future may see the pendulum of capital swing away from Davos Man-style globalisation. One counterpoint is Manila Woman8230;8217;8217; The low paid migrant worker from Asia and elsewhere, who is holding up the British and US health care system, and who is quite unlike Davos Man in a crucial respect 8212; she can be staunchly patriotic.

60 years later

The liberation of Auschwitz was marked this week. Those who were there still remember the silence that preceded and followed the liberation on January 27, 1945. The silence of death was followed by the silence of liberation. The rush of words in the world media this whole week, by eye-witnesses and commentators, only highlighted the continuing difficulty of breaking that silence, 60 years later.

With what words can one describe a horror that makes words like horror seem listless and wanting? 8216;8216;Such a colossal crime can be commited only if you mobilize the darkest of the soul8217;8217; wrote Israeli writer Aharon Appelfeld in the New York Times, 8216;8216;To imagine such darkness apparently needs a new language8217;8217;. Commentors vainly flailed about for empathy, with references to the tsunami and 9/11.

So is the effort to remember inevitably futile? Was the Holocaust an evil too great to understand, or remember? Should we just shrug off the obligation to remember, like Britain8217;s Prince Harry who recently sported the swastika in a fancy dress party?

Story continues below this ad

In the Washington Post, columnist Richard Cohen voiced a fear that has haunted many: because we find it so difficult to understand Auschwitz, because we cannot reconcile it with our belief in our own innate goodness and that of God, we will let it slip from memory. With eyewitnesses becoming fewer each year, the Holocaust will become that statue or this memorial. It will become something that happened in the last century to other people. Prince Harry shrugged, and 8216;8216;someday, I fear, so shall we all and then 8212; as it has in Rwanda and at Srebrenica 8212; it will happen again8217;8217;.

In Britain8217;s Daily Telegraph, Jonathan Sacks, chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, insisted on the necessity to remember the lesson of the Holocaust: a society is as large as the space it makes for the stranger.

Target Iran

Could Bangladesh possibly be going the way of Afghanistan? In a long and anxious piece titled 8216;The Next Islamist Revolution?8217;, the New York Times pointed to a growing 8216;8216;Talibanisation8217;8217; in parts of Bangladesh, where religious violence is said to be filling the power vacuum.

And on Iran, pundits of the world media point to the warning signals: the verbal warfare between Tehran and Washington, US Vice President Dick Cheney8217;s comment on Inauguration Day that Iran8217;s nuclear programme put it 8216;8216;right at the top of the list8217;8217; of world trouble spots, Seymour Hersh8217;s story in the New Yorker magazine saying the White House had authorised secret commando operations to identify targets inside Iran, the defiant-dismissive taunts in response from Iran8217;s powers that be.

Story continues below this ad

In an editorial on January 27, the New York Times noted that Bush himself had said little, but that 8216;8216;these hawkish rumblings eerily recall the months before the American invasion of Iraq when some of the same officials pressed hardest for military action, while the president remained publicly uncommitted8217;8217;.

 

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Loading Taboola...
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement