National Prejudices

Whilst we may feel that we live in an age where prejudice against one another simply because of inherent causes has been eradicated, it is untrue to say that our attitudes are unbiased or unprejudiced. After the Second World War nationalism appeared to be fading in its influence over hearts and minds, and many European countries were ready to sign up to the EEC/EU proposals of pan-Eurpoean free markets and open borders. Yet there has been an increasing movement towards patriotism and sharing a national identity. Whilst these are good things in themeselves, as they promote goodwill and co-operation , they can easily lead to nationalism and xenophobia if taken to the extreme.
Furthermore, there appears to be great resentment towards many industrialising nations that threaten the commerical and military migt of Western powers. Should the West fear the rise of China as an economic and military superpower, or view this as an opportunity to build economic and global security ties? I can speak with no authority here, as I have no detailed knowledge that politicians and diplomats will have, but there is certainly a current of opinion within ordinary society that China represents a threat to the West.
Many people shudder with horror at the thought of buying a product manufactured in China, although they secretly rejoice at making huge savings by buying cheaper products. People prefer to buy products made in their own country, out of a spirit of patriotism certainly. However, it seems that people in the UK are much more willing to buy an American product than one made in the Far East. Again, this could be a spirit of race, rather than national, patriotism, out of a determination to aid one's bretheren, but this does seem perverse in an age when we are attempting to promote the message of equality and trying to destroy national barriers. After all, why should China, Taiwan etc. be denied the same privilidges that come through a domination over trade and global affairs that Europe and North American have enjoyed for decades.
Yet we still continue to improve our own economies in an attempt to compete with China and India, instead of focussing on diversifying and improving efficiency to tackle wastage, climate change and social issues such as unemployment and income disparity. Unfortunately we appear to value national standing and prestige above fairness and preservation of the planet.
Another example is the prevailing attitude towards migration into this country. The perennial notion that is circulating is that immigrant families come to Britain cheifly to live off the state and enjoy privilidges that they cannot afford in their country of origin. Despite this view, there is very little evidence that immigrants work any less than hard than UK nationals. In fact, many Polish and Eastern european workers, the ones that are most often bearted for their idleness and letahrgy, are the ones that work the hardest doing jobs that any ordinary Briton would refuse to do for a wage that no-one else would accept.
In addition, migrant workers are often able to under-cut British workers on price, as they are prepared to put up with lower wages. Whilst many British labourers have every right to complain about losing their jobs to migrant workers, this still shows a failure to grasp a basic economic principle; that price dictates any choice the consumer makes. If British workers wish to retain their jobs, they must strive to improve effieciency or quality.
One would assume, of course, that this opinion would only be shared by those who are directly impacted by migrant labourers, such as builders, plumbers etc. However, the attitude of, if not hostility, then unease regarding migtration, especially from nations we would regard as under-developed, appears to be endemic rather than a representation of a minority opinion. Many politicians are regarding migration, and the reduction of immigrants, as a central issue that will win them votes if they are able to cut the numbers. Whilst this may be a popular policy, surely one could not regard blatant discrimination as an ethical or tenable policy. After all, if the immigration was a brain-drain from the US to the UK, how many people would be complaining?
Overall, therefore, there anumber of ways in which we can see there is much work to be done in tackling prejudice and self-interest, despite the many advances we have made in recent years. Migration is likely to become and even hotter political hot-potato in recent years. Lets hope we can eventually see some sense and focus on our own failings rather than picking out those in others.

Parliament Press Gallery Piece

‘Write a balanced discussion paper assessing how, or whether, Britain’s aid policy objectives – universal free education, universal access to drugs to tackle malaria and HIV – can be achieved. Set out how these objectives have been affected by the UK’s wider foreign policy and military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.’

To be sure, the introduction of a universal policy with the objective of providing free, comprehensive care or education globally would require vast mobilisation of resources and expertise. Gordon Brown wrote in the Times (April, 2007) that educating the 80 million children who do not currently go to school would cost $10 billion per year. A significant sum this may be, but not an impossible target to meet.
Even the UK could fund a universal education programme with minimal damage to public services. Furthermore, we have the expertise in this country, as a leading nation in providing quality university courses and teaching, to train educators, doctors, nurses and carers with the necessary skills to implement such a broad policy.
Again, funding is a significant issue that will need detailed scrutiny in order to find the necessary finances, but not an impossible aim. Assuming half of the world’s richest economies take part in funding the universal education/healthcare programme, the UK’s share of the cost would clock in at around £28,000,000 per year. This figure pales into insignificance when compared with the amount that is proposed to be saved under the Conservative policy of scrapping the existing inheritance tax system. George Osborne, whether correctly or not, certainly believes it credible that he can save £1 billion in taxes. If, rather than not collect this money and benefit the tax-payer, they were to spend it upon implementing a world policy of free education, which would benefit far more people, the UK could soar past the target figure needed.
Of course, however, it would be political disaster for the Conservatives, or any political party to even conceive the notion that taxes should be spent on something other than UK public services. And this is the most important attitude that must change in the UK. We have the expertise and the finances to implement such a policy, but we lack the collective self-sacrificing and charitable nature needed. As a country we are quite happy to put our 2 penny pieces into the Breast Cancer Awareness box at the corner shop counter, but giving away millions of pounds of tax-payers money appear quite a different matter.
Of course, we have a point. Why should OUR taxes should be spent on anything but OUR services? Look after Number 1 is the perennial dictum of any capitalist society, right? Yet this selfish attitude towards money is hindering the progress of many schemes such as these, providing universal access to drugs and education. If only we as nations in the West could view our ‘global responsibility’ and recognise the need to be more generous and self-sacrificing with regards to our giving, much more could be achieved.
Furthermore, withholding on issues such as these further perpetuates the stereotype of the Westerner as an arrogant money-maker, rather than as an altruistic humanist. We are acutely aware of the need to break down stereotypes in the UK, but fail to identify where we are merely disseminating the typecast we strive to avoid. In addition, we can hardly preach to the world about the need to reduce carbon emissions, reduce wastage of resources and cut population growth, whilst we consistently foster growth in our own economies without assisting those that have hardly begun to develop.
Moreover, investment in education and healthcare will not cost the western world in the long-run, despite the commitment required right now (although it appear that the obligation may be less onerous than first appears) in order to provide in such a way. Investment in education will mean more and better minds focusing on the needs of the world, such as tackling climate change, resource depletion etc. and health care provision will benefit everyone by eradicating dangerous diseases that spread quickly and threaten life. Eliminating these disease will also lead to healthier populations, putting less pressure on resources in the future, such as preventative medicine and the provision of constant health care.
Consequently, it appears that, if the UK and the Western world were to shake themselves out of their shells of complacency, and in the worst cases arrogance, the implementation of universal education and universal provision of drugs to combat HIV and malaria could easily be met. As we have seen, the cost to the UK would not be great when compared with the amount we spend on ourselves, and the expertise could easily be sourced using the educational institutions already established in Europe and North America. All that is required is a collective sense of altruism and unselfishness that could easily be raised if only we had a broader view of the world than the insular, sheltered stance we currently have.