Globe & Africa: Caplan Blinkered & Saunders Forgetful

The "civil society" groups did a lot of good & noble work against apartheid, and one is always understandably bound by one's own perspective on any issue, but Caplan's piece reflects his and their heroic self-image, manichaen in view, with they as the only true and decent allies of the South African domestic anti-apartheid movement, and even Mulroney & Clark's efforts, recognised as ANC's best allies by Mandela & ANC itself, viewed as insufficient. This was the problem with Freeman's book, she correctly criticised our policy through the decades, basing her judgment on the ANC's own evaluation, but when she got to the Mulroney-Clark years, and the ANC said the Govt was their best govt friend, then she said the ANC were naive and mistaken and Canada was still in the wrong. So ANC right as long as it suits civil society view of evil Cdn Govt, but wrong when they become positive about Govt, as only the pure civil society folk were doing anything worthwhile, as the spiritual brothers & sisters of the suffering South Africans themselves. I understand how hard it is to get and remain motivated about such issues, as citizen activists, and how understandable and even necessary it is to lapse into manichaeism so as to keep going, and when one contributes in a meaningful way and some sort of victory is achieved, how appropriate it is to indulge in self-congratulation and even self-agrandisement, as that psychological pleasure is the only pay-off one will ever get for all the work one has done. But still. It would be nice if some broader perspective was achieved, with time. I hope Clark &/or Mulroney & others take the time to offer some gentle corrections and perspective. Caplan & Co. did do an awful lot of good work. But that's no reason for such an ungenerous & blinkered account, diminishing all the other actors' good work, however understandable Caplan's motivations.

As for Saunders, I was struck how half of it was devoted to Finland's example, and passing mention made, at the end, of Dhaka. OK, Finland of course can adapt, like all developed northern hemisphere, and Dhaka could potentially move to higher ground, as part of some Sub-Continental Union (an SCU, like the EU, with national sovereignties preserved and shared, to restore the region's natural unity, torn apart by nationalisms?). But what of those whose technological development and middle classes are far, far behind that of even Bangladesh? What of the expanding Sahara and Burkina Faso & Mali, etc.? What of sub-Saharan Africa, Mozambique, Angola, Namibia, Tanzania, etc., and disappearing arable land, ever more vicious climate, and none of the wealth nor tools to permit successful adaptation? Where are the livable high grounds that can support so many? How will they adapt? And if they cannot, where will they go, who will take them? And so given this, knowing this, what should we do? What must we do?

Whatever your belief system, the sentiment of the parable of the Good Samaritan is universal. In fact, the supposed "modern" obligations of human rights legislation have much deeper roots, and in countries with legal systems based on the British Common Law, our obligations were defined by Lord Ellenborough in 1803: "The law of humanity, which is anterior to all positive laws, obliges us to afford them relief, to save them from starving". As political and technological development have made us all residents of one global village, so it is we are as bound by that judgment and by our consciences today as then: we are as required to offer relief to all starving paupers, everywhere, as was the parish of Eastbourne.