Support
Ask your question
Search
Visual Collection
Popular Questions
- Is organized religion the root of all ... latest post by Subzero | 200 responses
- Why don't schools teach us to form our... latest post by rwt | 20 responses
- When will someone ask STUDENTS what th... latest post by rwt | 10 responses
- Who Protects Us From Them? latest post by Subzero | 5 responses
- Will human beings really ever understa... latest post by Subzero | 47 responses
Popular Topics
Most active users
- Thai sean 1272 posts | member since Nov 11, 2007
- treeless 17 posts | member since Dec 9, 2011
- cyberworldukltd 16 posts | member since Feb 7, 2012
- thedoc 1381 posts | member since Sep 10, 2006
- GDiFonzo 10 posts | member since Nov 9, 2011
Profile of Anuradha Mittal
Well, when I think about how to counter [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, when I think about how to counter violence, anger, or hatred, I think the only way that I can do it is through passivism, love, and forgiveness. That’s the only way that one can actually challenge violence, anger, or hatred. Again, it is passivism, love, and forgiveness.
I don’t think we have the right to consider [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I don’t think we have the right to consider human beings as being more valuable than other life forms. And if we do actually think that, I think it’s a real mistake because actually it works against us. The only way we can survive on this planet and I think enough evidence is in and we need to learn if we haven’t so far that we basically live in harmony with nature and that’s the only way to survive. With the climate change that we are seeing around us, with the destruction of our seas, the destruction of our forests, we are basically not endangering Mother Earth; what we are managing to do is endanger ourselves. So, if we think that we are more valuable than the others and other species, actually we don’t value ourselves because if we do value ourselves we would have a different form of life system, a different way of living on this planet so we would leave a very small ecological footprint because we know that we value ourselves and our survival. And the survival of the future generations of the children actually depends on living in harmony with nature, with respect and acknowledgment of other species.
I think in terms of capitalism and what [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I think in terms of capitalism and what comes after it, I think the answer lies within each one of us and what we are willing to do for it. I would just say that it is inherently unsustainable system, capitalism; and it’s a matter of time before it goes. And the real challenge is, as you say, what comes after that and that is really up to each one of us. What is our vision that drives that? I know the social movements have declared that a better world is possible, and I would say it would basically be after capitalism, the possibility of many worlds within a world, possibility of different models of economic organization, but economic organization which is rooted in our local economies, which is rooted in -- not in some trade agreements, but really in our Universal Declaration of Human Rights. An economic system which sees not nature as something to be exploited, but sees nature to work in harmony with. And, so coming back to what’s after capitalism? I see after capitalism, because of the rising social movements and aspirations of people, a world where we can have equity, a world where we can actually talk about and have a dialog instead -- and diplomacy instead of bombardment and killing of innocent people and children. It’s a world – well, I guess I could continue dreaming and share what these dreams are but that is basically it depends on each one of us what our dreams are and if you are willing to fulfill them because that’s what is going to come after capitalism.
Economic globalization or global [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Economic globalization or global corporatization has nothing to do with democracy; it is really about replacing governments which need to be of the people, by the people, for the people. But corporate governance, where again aspirations of people come second or actually don’t figure anywhere, when you look at the corporate interest, that the baseline. So, in terms of economic globalization that we hear is a solution towards poverty to bring democracy is nothing but a myth because we have yet to see that happen anywhere. If we look at the evidence that’s in, we do see increasing inequities. We do see corporations getting more and more power and taking over the power of the people. They have today more human rights compared to human beings themselves. If you think of Coca-Cola in India, where people right to water has been taken away, thanks to our corporation. So, when you look at this corporations, it becomes very very obvious that we live in a world where economic globalization is not the solution in terms of ending dictatorships, but it is actually about replacing and bringing in a new kind of dictatorship, which is corporate governance.
Well, I think one way that we can actually [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, I think one way that we can actually stop gang violence and motivate young people to place importance on education instead of killing each other is actually by respecting and honoring the young people. If we actually respect and honor them, we are teaching them to respect and honor the other. We have to make sure that we have an education system that is actually educating. We would need a different kind of education system, not one which is different at inner city areas compared to the fancy public schools in richer areas in the suburbs. So, we will have to build an education system which can deal with the existing inequities, an education system, a public education system where taxpayers money goes to actually build a rich educational system, which can deal with the hypocrisies of the society that the young people are confronted with, an education system which respects and honors them as individuals, as human beings so they learn to value each other. So, it is really about not just an education system but actually honoring our younger generation. It is time that we not just see them as leaders of tomorrow but to recognize they can be leaders of today; and they are leaders today.
That’s a brilliant question and I am going [...]
Anuradha Mittal: That’s a brilliant question and I am going to answer it as a woman, as somebody from India. I would say that actually I love my country, and what is a country. Country is in some ways a figment of imagination; in some ways it’s a sense of community; and it is a part of a larger community, the global community. And so, I find myself loving India, loving Asia, loving this world. But at the same time, I think I defend it because I love it as I would love my own mother. And in terms of defense, I would say the way I defend it is by actually pointing out what is wrong with my country because I am a patriot. When my country spends huge amounts of money on defense, -- in fact, India is the third largest spender on defense in the world after U.S. and China -- while at the same time it is home to nearly 380 million people who go to bed hungry or it is a country where 380 million people live on less than a dollar a day, the way I defend my country is to point out what’s wrong with that picture. So, the only way I know how to love and defend my country is a) because I belong there because I am a patriot; but at the same time if I don’t point out what’s wrong with my country, then nobody else will. It’s like, if my mother has a problem, in this case my mother has an addiction to military expenditures, it has to be us as children to point it out. And that’s the relationship I have with my country.
Well, the best way I think these trillion [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, the best way I think these trillion dollars could be spent is to actually use to promote security in the world. And that can be done by fighting against AIDS, by fighting and struggling to end hunger, homelessness, by ensuring schools for our children, by ensuring that every child has a real childhood so they would not be members of gangs or join terrorist groups. So, those trillion dollars could actually be used instead on military budgets, it could be used to actually promote security in this world by fulfilling dreams and aspirations of people around the world. My country India is the third largest spender on defense in the world after U.S. and China. If we look at the world food programs country page on India, it reports that it is home to at least half of the world’s hungry population; over 380 million people go to bed hungry in India. This is a country where more than 150 million children have never seen the inside of a school. They are the ones who are working as domestic servants. They are the ones who are working in hazardous industries. They are the ones who are called child laborers. They do not know what childhood looks like. So, those military expenditures of India for example could be used to build a very different India. This is a country where more than hundred thousands farmers have taken their own lives between 1993 and 2003, and yet India thinks it can promote security by investing and buying weapons from countries such as the U.S., Sweden, France. We know very well how to promote security in a country like India by investing in India’s future, in its children by ending child labor, by ensuring the risk and exploitation, and that’s the only way to spend those trillions of dollars: promote security, end hunger, end poverty, end disease, make sure that nobody goes to bed hungry without a roof on their head.
I am quite sure that my colleagues sitting [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I am quite sure that my colleagues sitting around this table from the Middle East can answer this question better than I could. I would use the example of my own country India and Pakistan and why we are not able to reach peace; a lot of that has to do with the politics. Politics is the game that is played by the people in power to maintain their power that they would like to see the conflicts remain. So, people are engaged in the conflict rather than be able to focus on the larger issues that confront us. It is international geopolitics. I think countries like India and Pakistan or the Middle East do not have peace because the international geopolitics does not want peace. In the case of Middle East, I do know from my friends who live there that almost 80 percent of the population and more in both Israel and Palestine, for example, want two nation state, but there are vested interests and the ones who would like the sound of the war drums that they would continue promoting war, promote conflict instead of actually promoting peace. And that is the real reason that we have not yet been able to have peace and, of course, that there are many ways of promoting these ideas. You see, for example, in the recent conflict in Lebanon or the humanitarian crisis of Lebanon, the role that the Western media, the corporate media plays; and basically their ratings are going up. They would love conflict situations that their news programming is about spreading the lies and the myths. For example, Bush administration would like to use the media to have the whole world believe that if anyone disagrees with them, they basically have weapons of mass destruction. So as long as that is happening, we will not have peace in the world because peace has not been given a chance and it has not been given a chance by the people who want to ensure that there is conflict because they gain from that conflict. As long as there is conflict, there will be sales of weapons to Third World countries. U.S. will be dumping its weapons to Israel. Palestine and other people will -- some of the people will be looking at ways such as those of suicide bombings. So, there is somebody who gains from it; and I would say also follow the money and the answer comes from that. That’s why we don’t have peace in the Middle East or in other parts of the world.
Well, when we saw the aggression in Iraq [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, when we saw the aggression in Iraq started with the U.S. invasion of Iraq, millions of people marched around the world to the extent that even New York Times and Kofi Annan called this anti-war movement or actually the peace movement, basically the other superpower. And this superpower in some ways, one could say, did not stop the war. But at the same time, when millions of people marched on the day in February, we sent a very clear signal that this war is not just, that this war does not have the approval of humanity. It is an unjust war, it’s an act of aggression, it’s an immoral invasion and today an immoral colonization of a country. But in terms of other ways that we can also stop the war not just by taking away the credibility, we have to gain over the credibility from the Bush administrations by denouncing its actions in Afghanistan and in Iraq. But we do know that war has become a way of oiling the wheels of this economic system, which -- the invasion of Iraq is really about the interest of the Bush administration. And I feel one way to deal with it is also through a preemptive strike. No, I am not talking about Bush’s idea of a preemptive strike; but if it is the way to grease the wheels of an economic system, what if each one of use refuse to go to work that day? What if we bring the economy to a standstill? What if teachers say we will not be teaching in the classrooms, but we will be out in the streets with our children, with the school students? That can say no to this war. What if the people who run the railways say, “Well, no train is going to move which is going to allow further movement of goods?” What if the truckers say that no truck is going to cross the border till this war stops? What if our soldiers walk away saying, “We will not fight this unjust war.” So I feel like what we have to do is launch a preemptive strike around the world when the powers and the superpowers decide that they want to go and launch war so that they can continue and build their empires further.
I think the basic dignities that each one of [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I think the basic dignities that each one of us as a human being deserves or actually has have been ensured by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They go from political freedoms and the political aspirations that we have. For example, the right to association, right of gathering, or freedom of speech, but at the same time our economic social cultural rights, for example the right to an adequate standard of living which would include our right to food, right to be free of hunger, right to have shelter, right to healthcare. And the reason that so many people go without them are these inherent inequities in the economic system that we live in, that today’s world instead of being guided by the conventions such as the covenant on economic social cultural rights, the covenant on civil and political rights which come from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have been put in the backseat whereas the new treaties such as our trade agreements, they take -- they come first. So, as long as we have that, we find these power structures that some people -- their greed and the corporate greed -- is based on the violation of the human rights of so many people. Human rights are basically guarantees of a human dignity, a life of dignity, free of hunger, free of exploitation, free of endangered servitude.
Well, it is true that we produce enough food [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, it is true that we produce enough food to feed everyone in the world. We produce enough food to be able to provide over 2,720 kilocalories per person per day around the world; it is enough to make each one of us fat. And yet, despite the amount of food we have hunger, growing hunger in this world where over 858 million people are considered chronically malnourished. And the reason for that is because it’s not the shortage of food production; it’s the shortage of purchasing power. I could ask the question, why do people in the United States have to make the choice of putting food on the table or having a roof over their head? It’s the absence of lowing weight jobs, or one could look at the Third World country like Brazil, which produces enough food that it could feed the world and yet 40,000 people die each year from hunger related diseases. So, the answer to “Why do we still have hunger in the world of plenty” is really because of inequities. It really is about the need for land reform; it is about farmer’s rights to seeds; it’s about seeing food and agriculture as about feeding our communities instead of seeing food and agriculture as about trade-in commodities. And as long as we see food as something to do traded, we will see these inequities. We will see children around the world going to bed hungry.
I think it’s not about needing a global [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I think it’s not about needing a global government, but what we are going to need is global governance. Now that’s in real deficit today. It is true when we look at some of the most important issues of the time, hunger. It is not just something happening in Asia, Africa, or Latin America; it is to be found in rich Western nations as well. In the United States, almost 36 million Americans are considered food insecure. So, when we look at some of those issues, the absence of healthcare, I mean, over 45 million Americans have no health insurance. If we look at increasing poverty figures, again poverty is endemic to all parts of the world and that is because of the absence of global governance and that’s what we do need. It is not about one global government because it cannot be the model of the UN Security Council where basically the empires, the superpowers, the ex-colonial powers are still in power. But we will need global governance where basically countries, regions can actually determine what is best for them, where the people of those countries of the region can determine what kind of policies they want. So, it is not about one government for all because those attempts have been made through the World Trade Organization, one government for all to regulate all. We are looking for a different kind of governance; and it is really about global governance which really is about everyone in this world having a right to participate in the governments, to have a government which respects their wishes, their desires, which fulfills the obligations in terms of respecting the human rights.
Well, the current economic system which has [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, the current economic system which has come to be dominated by the interests of corporations, a handful of monopolies, yes, it is corrupt because it is not built to cater to the needs of the people. It is built to cater to the interests of these corporations. And it is really about understanding those power structures and the way the economic system works, whether it is the so-called free trade liberalization, deregulation which all sounds good; but this is really about a few people, few corporations having more and more control of this world. So, as long as we understand this economic system that despite it being called free, for example free market policies, is not really free, but it is about colonization, it is about extracting the resources of the many to basically cater to the interest of few, we will have an economic system which will not reflect our needs, our aspirations, our desires for a different kind of world. So, I think in terms of dismantling it, we have to a) understand this economic system. This economic system is about few people gaining control over our resources. 2) Acknowledging it that we as consumers by keeping quiet how we actually sustain that economic system. And 3) it’s about gaining our citizen power: that the governments have to be about what we want them to be, to make them accountable to us, and that they need to regulate on behalf of the citizens, of the people, as well as the planet itself. So, I think it is about understanding this economic system.
That’s an excellent question. But, yes, it [...]
Anuradha Mittal: That’s an excellent question. But, yes, it is true that when the powerful use force it is called self-defense and when the weak use it, it is called terrorism because the powerful have the power and the ability to frame it the way they want it as the Bush administration has done that their acts in Afghanistan, that their acts in Iraq are not called colonization, they are not called aggression, they are not called terrorism, but they are called the right to self-defense. We saw it in the case of Israeli aggression in Lebanon that it was really about the right to self-defense where it was really collective punishment against the people of Lebanon because they have the power to be able to frame it the way they want to. But I think we have to also remember ANC was once called a terrorist organization because the powerful, the apartheid regime, had the ability to call Nelson Mandela a terrorist; and we have to take away that power of framing. We have to shift the terms of the debate in this one and seek their powers so we can actually call that all acts of violence whether conducted by states, whether conducted by the empire called United States of America, that they are still basically nothing but acts of terrorism and they are being committed right now in Iraq, in Afghanistan, around the world where the rich countries are selling their weapons and allowing people to be able to kill each other.
I think that we have seen an increase in [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I think that we have seen an increase in civilian death because we are being told not to value life. In case of a war, where loss of life is talked about as collateral damage, with deaths of women, men, children, meaning of people is reported as collateral damage, it numbs us. It takes away something very important and vital from us where human beings are nothing but a collateral damage. We are not yet talking about numbers, we are not talking about lives destroyed, we are not talking about families destroyed; but we are basically talking about just collateral damage. It’s just numbing because we are not seeing a face; it is distant. The other thing that is happening is in situations of war, people at conflict are so made out to be the other; people are taking sides instead of taking side of humanity, instead of taking side of peace, instead of taking side of wanting a better world. We have decided to paint everything as the other. And when our interest is not seeing painted as with the other, it is easy to accept deaths of civilians. It is easy to accept the lives that we are told in the name of self-defense, in the name of promoting security, it means making the other insecure because we are being told that our security is not tied with the security of the other. And that is a recipe for continued conflicts and war situations and deaths of civilians because we are not talking about the loss of human life. We are not talking about the loss of dreams, aspirations of people; what we are talking about is what’s called collateral damage.
I think the question here is not so much [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I think the question here is not so much about how much of a liberty are we going to offer, but really about for how long will we continue giving away our liberty in the name of promoting security. I think it’s a matter of time when we realize that we are making ourselves more insecure by giving away our basic liberties. We are making ourselves insecure as we find in the name of promoting security, communities are being targeted, special certain races are being targeted, certain nationalities are being targeted. And by that, we are creating further divisiveness in the community in our countries that we live in. And as long as that continues to happen, we will not have security. So, if you really want to promote security, I think it is really going to be one day us recognizing that and being able to say for our security, we want our liberties back. The only way to be secure is to have our freedoms.
I have two things to say about your [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I have two things to say about your question; one is I would ask you, “Do you think the way this war was launched, for example, in Iraq in order to bring democracy and remove a dictator, was it done in a democratic way?” When I think about that question, I realize that so many people marched against this immoral invasion of Iraq; and yet the Bush administration went ahead with this idea of spreading democracy. So, given that, I would say that you cannot bring democracy through undemocratic means. Two, if we actually think that because these Western rich nations are bringing democracy in countries like Iraq and people are not living in fear, I think we need to look at the number of civilian deaths, the fear of people of bombs going off, to look at the civil war that’s going on today in Iraq, thanks to the kind of intervention U.S. did in the name of bringing democracy or look at the fear that people live with or have lived with recently in Lebanon. So, I think it is a total myth when in the name of promoting democracy, immoral, illegitimate wars have been launched just to promote the interest of few corporations. They do not take away the fear of people. They are not fulfilling aspirations of the people of Iraq or elsewhere. These are unjust wars that are -- do not have the approval of the people of the U.S. or of England or all those countries that have sent their troops in there. And actually, if I could also add, I would say that it’s not necessarily true that I as an immigrant, a brown skinned woman feel secure in U.S. I do live in fear in that country especially with all this war on terrorism, the kind of encroachments on our rights that have taken place. I live in fear in that country and I know a lot of people live in fear. So, I think we have to really question these myths that are given to us about bringing democracy to the rest of the world or giving people an opportunity to live without fear. Actually we are living in fear around the world.
Well, we will need to build an economic [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, we will need to build an economic system that will not see nature as an obstacle to overcome or see nature to conquer. And it would really require [inaudible] economic system which breaks the enclosures of a human mind to be able to go beyond that, which can see us working in participation and in harmony with nature because that is where our survival lies and that will be the best economic system.
I think as long as corporate social [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I think as long as corporate social responsibility is voluntary, are dependent on the corporations to adopt the standards, it is not possible. Unfortunately, it has turned into a public relations exercise where we see corporations like Monsanto talk about through biotechnology feeding the world, it is nothing else but PR campaigns; it is nothing else but poor washing. Or they talk about their technology will result in less use of pesticides; that’s green washing. And we saw from the Rio Summit that corporations did emerge as these partners, these public-private partnerships that emerged from the Rio Summit, [inaudible] Summit and suddenly these corporations instead of polluters became partners. Now as long as we have corporate social responsibility as a pure tool where they are underneath obligation to fulfill the codes that they sign up to, we will see a world where corporations are using it for their fancy advertising. Chevron and Shell can have their participants to talk about environmental protection with these fancy slogans, “Do people care?” But the truth is we need to ask, “Do people kill?” And, yes, these corporations are still killing. So, as long as it is voluntary, as long as corporations are not regulated, as long as they are not tied, their hands are not tied behind their back in terms of respecting human rights and respecting workers rights and respecting our environmental codes, we will see a world where basically corporate social responsibility will be nothing else but basically a pure exercise whereby the corporations can get away with basically using it to promote their interests but without being accountable to anyone. Also, along with these codes, you need not just independent monitoring by civil society, but we also need governments implementing these codes of conduct, that these governments instead of being in the pockets of corporations are actually ensuring that these corporations are living up to the ideals that they have signed up to. And if we do not do that, whether it is Global Compact between the UN and companies such as Shell, we will not really see reality change on the ground. And last thing I would say is for corporate social responsibility, it is really important that environmental regulations go hand in hand with principles of equity. You cannot separate environmental ecology and equity. And we have to have codes of conduct for corporations that basically apply on all these areas of ecological [audio ends]
I agree that it’s a question that we have to [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I agree that it’s a question that we have to ask that how can we build a human society to be in balance and in harmony as long as women are denied positions of power. But one thing that I would also add is not just replacing men with women; we have to also replace the decisions which are so destructive for the human society. I would not like to see more Condoleezza Rices in the world. She is not my sister. So, how do we build a world which reflects the principles of humanity where all of us, especially also us women, have a seat at the table because we do know if we’re not at the table we’re on the menu. So, yes, that is a question for each one of us that how can we talk about having balance or how can we talk about human society being in harmony as long as women are denied a seat at the table. It is not about power. We do not want to change those in power with somebody else in power. We want to get rid of power structures that actually we can have a human society which has that balance.
I don’t think it’s about the African [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I don’t think it’s about the African countries that they are least developed, or they are not developed as the Western states, and we have to question the meaning of development. It is true, Africa is a continent which gave birth to humanity, but it is also a continent which is incredibly rich and that has been its worst problem. It has been conquered, it has been pillaged, it’s been raped, it’s been colonized; and that colonization continues even today which prevents the people of Africa from being able to have governments which actually represent their wishes. Instead, you have the interference of Western countries which still want to continue the form of colonization that we have seen in the past. We know about the English colonization, we know about the French, we know about the Belgium; and now you have a new kind of colonization which is of the corporations from the Western countries who continue to pillage Africa as a continent. And the projects that come to Africa in the name of development need to be questioned. These are projects who displace people, which reject the way of life, the indigenous way of life, which bring in technology which does not work. So, it’s a whole myth when we think that the people are hungry or poor in Africa or Africa is a basket case. No. Even when there has been starvation in countries like Ethiopia, food has been exported from there. So, the real issue is one of colonization that continues even today.
Well, I think it is up to the decent people [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, I think it is up to the decent people of the world to actually stand up to the actions of their leaders which is self-serving and causing more conflict. If people had more people to people connections, they would realize, for example, President Bush perhaps does not represent all Americans, does not represent the desires of most Americans; that Tony Blair does not represent what most of the people in England want; or John Howard doesn’t represent people of Australia. Perhaps it represents President Bush more. So, it is really about connecting with each other and wanting to know more about each other. I think it’s one way to actually build a world which is not so divided because if leaders are allowed to actually define our connections, we will only see a divisive world. There would not be peace in the Middle East; there would not be peace between India and Pakistan. But when people can talk to each other, when they can share their experiences with each other, we actually find that we have the same aspirations: a safe secure future, future for our families and children, where our children do not have to think about being suicide bombers or fighting unjust wars. So that kind of connection is very important and that is what we can do to be global citizens.
Well, I believe, of course, we should have [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, I believe, of course, we should have the right to choose where we live. I mean we live in a world where capital can move, where goods can move; and I don’t understand why there is a mystery about people moving. Why do we have borders when we are -- don’t have borders for capital and goods to flow and we do not want to give the same opportunity to the people. We forget that it’s economic policies which take away opportunities from people who are then forced to flee their lands. Look at NAFTA, North American Free Trade Agreement, which has resulted in almost 500 Mexican small family farmers being displaced from land each day. They are the people, for example, who tried to come to the United States with dreams but all that they find is incarceration at the border, xenophobic legislators. They find incarceration and sometimes even death at the border. So, if the goods and capital can move, I do believe that people should be allowed to move as well and have the right to choose where they live. And perhaps that will be one way of having peace in this world and promoting security of everyone because then we would all be living in nations which are diverse nations, and a unity can come from diversity.
Good question. I don’t think it is socially [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Good question. I don’t think it is socially acceptable to hoard wealth while so many go without basic needs; but we have been brainwashed where basically when you look at your television or you look at the media, it’s about selling which has changed us from being human beings into consumers buying more and it is okay. Your standards are judged by the car that you have, by the size of the television that you have, the number of rooms you have in your house. And that again is perhaps in some cultures, in some cultures still even today it is not socially acceptable for people to go without, for example, food. They are built into your customs, into cultural habits that you would share; and, I think, it’s about challenging those definitions of what is socially acceptable. Does the media, do the corporations get to define through the advertising that it is okay for people to go hungry; that if they are hungry, it’s because of their own fault; that they are not working hard enough? And we have to break those myths, to dismantle them, and to start looking at those cultures which is still promoting the idea of sharing knowledge, of sharing resources, of sharing food because that’s one of the big ways of having peace in this world.
Well, I think the way we know slavery would [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, I think the way we know slavery would have been very different if the Africans were not enslaved and brought to the Americas. But more important I would say the history of Africa would be very very different where families, communities would not have been torn apart. A continent would not have been ravished if this phenomenon of slavery had not happened in Africa. But at the same time, I would say that the way we know resistance also, we would not have known the way we know it today. We would not -- yeah, we would have a very very different world.
I think it becomes necessary to break the [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I think it becomes necessary to break the law when we have asked the question that whose law it is, whose process is it, whose rule is it. Because if you look at law, apartheid was once a law, was legal. Women not having the right to vote was legal. Segregation based on race was legal. My country India was colonized like many other countries of the world and that was legal. So, I think it becomes important to break the law when we know that it is basically a golden law, i.e. person who has the gold has made the law. If it is a law which reflects the aspirations of the most of the humanity, that’s wonderful, that’s such things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for example. But as long as it is a law, which is created by people in power to protect the interest of a few and it’s a law which is based on the exploitation of the masses, of the majority of the people, if it is a law which denies opportunities to the majority of the people, if it is a law which is based on discrimination, if it is a law which is based on depriving people of opportunities, it cannot be a law that needs to be maintained. We saw with segregation, we have seen with colonization, we have seen with apartheid that whenever legal laws are made which discriminate against people, which take away opportunities from them, which are about exploitation, they are broken. And that learning has to happen from social movements today, farmers’ movements which are refusing to give in to the big agro businesses. We have to look at the people, for example in Bolivia, Cochabamba, where privatization of water was supposed to be the legal thing to do. It was to be a law, but people are breaking it; or we have to think of the townships in South Africa where people will not pay for the metered water. So, it is really laws which take away our basic human rights, those laws have to be broken because those laws are made to be broken.
Universal human rights are about ensuring [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Universal human rights are about ensuring human dignity, and no religious value or traditional value wants to deny human dignity. In my country India, it is basically home to the largest number of children who work as child laborers. Now there is no Asian or religious value to basically condone that. When we talk about the violation of workers rights, it is no Asian value to say, “No, we don’t respect human rights or we don’t respect workers rights.” So I think it is a total myth when we try to hide behind the cultures of religious backgrounds to say that it’s respect for human rights is basically violating our customs, our traditions because none of the religions or traditions or customs actually preach violation of any of these rights. Which religion would say to take the life of another is okay? Which tradition would say to violate and exploit somebody else and their resources is okay? Which religion really says that exploitation of women or selling of women is okay? Which religion would say that the ability to express yourself goes against the traditional right? There’s been none whatsoever. So it’s been a total myth and it’s been a way of denying communities, of denying women, of denying the most marginalized in society, the right to be able to fight back, to struggle for the basic rights. So, we have to accept the fact that human rights are universal, i.e. standards of human rights which have been accepted by the international community of states apply to the Western world countries like the United States, they apply to countries like India and China, they are universal. And second is human rights are indivisible, i.e. you cannot separate your civil and political human rights from the economics or social cultural rights. Do you have the right to food? You cannot really fulfill your right to vote on an empty stomach. So you cannot divide the two; and that is every time it’s a challenge, it’s a myth; but human rights are universal and they are indivisible.
Yes, I guess people have come to believe [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Yes, I guess people have come to believe that democracy, the Western liberal concept of democracy, means you go and vote and U.S., for example, becomes the champion, the leader of democracy. The democracy I believe in and I feel is better than the Western liberal concept of democracy is people’s democracy. It’s a food democracy where no one goes hungry, where people and the farmers have the right to choose what they grow, how they grow it, and that everyone gets to eat it. What I believe in is citizens’ democracy, and then democracy is not just about voting and hope that everyone got to vote which often does not happen in the United States or hope that our votes were actually counted which again in the United States has not happened though it is a champion of democracy. But it is really about citizens’ democracy, which starts not just from the day of voting and seizing the power as a voter, but it actually continues the day after the voting is over, after the election results are out. The citizens are ensuring that the governments they have elected are accountable to them, that they hold them responsible for the decisions they make. So it is not that despite millions of people marching, Bush administration can go to war in Iraq, that despite millions marching in Australia, John Howard’s government can support the war in Iraq, or in England, another mother of monarchy where they think that it’s okay for them to basically defy the will of millions of people who are on the streets of London and elsewhere in England and say, “Okay, we are still going to war.” So, yeah, I would say that is better than this Western liberal concept of democracy that has been thrust upon the rest of the world by the United States and other Western nations; and that is real democracy, people’s democracy, citizens’ democracy, food democracy that I actually believe in.
First of all, we have to question the war [...]
Anuradha Mittal: First of all, we have to question the war itself. If we talk about self-defense, we actually have to redefine our security. If we look at the latest -- since 9/11, the things that have happened around the world, we know that there has been nothing done to actually promote security. The actions of Bush administration have made each one of us in this world more insecure. So, there is no such thing as a holy war or a just war. What we do know is that countries are just at war, and it is as simple as that. War which is about violence, which is about aggression, which is about taking lives of people, which is about colonizing, which is about stealing resources of other countries, there is nothing holy about it, there is nothing just about it, and so this whole myth about self-defense or about humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian intervention would require not actually going to war. It would require a congress, would require our parliaments to basically intervene as should have happened in the case of Lebanon. Governments around the world should have rallied, immediately asked for a ceasefire, but no in the name of self-defense a month was allowed to go by, more than thousand people were allowed to be killed while millions of people were displaced in the name of self-defense. There is no defense when you make ourselves vulnerable. We make ourselves more insecure and that’s what needs to happen.
Jodie, I think you are the best person to [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Jodie, I think you are the best person to answer this question. I actually think the kind of change that I want and whatever little I know of you, I do know that the change that we want can only happen when it happens gracefully and without taking innocent victims with it. And secondly, the question that you asked “Is there a way for America to lose its standing as the most powerful nation on this planet without disrupting the entire planet,” I think the only way we can save the planet and not disrupt the planet is actually for America to relinquish the power that it has on this planet as a superpower. These unilateral actions that we have seen with the last administration, we know it’s disrupting this planet. So, the only way this planet can survive is not to have the kind of superpowers that we have seen, for example, America to become. And your third question about “Can power ever relinquish power,” I think it’s not for the power to relinquish power; it’s for the people to get the powerful to relinquish the power. The only way empires can be dismantled is by the grass root social movements, by the people who stand up. We are not waiting for the charity of dictators. We do not want benevolent dictators; there can be no dictators.
Well, I would say terrorists are benefiting [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, I would say terrorists are benefiting from terrorism. By that I mean it includes governments of United States, for example, the Bush administration who is benefiting from terrorism. I would say corporations such as Bechtel or Lockheed Martin are the ones who are benefiting from terrorism. And, of course, it’s the people who are in power, they are benefiting from terrorism because that has become a way of colonizing our minds, of creating this culture of fear when you can put people in fear so they would be willing to give away the basic rights, their civil liberties, that they would agree to the kind of intervention we have in our lives of why attacking and everything. So those hard won rights that have been removed just because in the name of fighting terrorism, we know who’s winning: it’s the terrorists. This is not about you and me. This is really about the corporations, this is about the powerful politicians, this is about some fundamentalists who are benefiting from it; but it is definitely not the humanity.
I think it depends if we see ourselves as [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I think it depends if we see ourselves as consumers or citizens. Because if we are consumers, we will have basically brands be far more powerful. But if we are citizens of this world, we will be building governments that represent the aspirations of the people.
Well, for me, I think the definition of [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, for me, I think the definition of courage hasn’t changed just because we are in a different time. Courage has always meant the same thing, which is being able to stand up to corruption, to oppression, to exploitation. But I think courage also means not just to struggle for something which affects one directly, but courage is really about struggling also for the rights of the others. That’s what takes real courage. But also for me personally, I feel courage is also not just about changing this world. It is really also about ensuring that the present day world has not changed me. So for me, more and more courage has come to mean that.
That’s a very good question, and this is [...]
Anuradha Mittal: That’s a very good question, and this is really about the double standards in foreign policy or the absence of a foreign policy, which would say that it is okay for the Israeli or the French or the Americans to have nuclear bombs, that it is okay for President Bush to go to India and talk about promoting nuclear technology and providing nuclear technology to India, despite it’s not being a member of the non-nuclear proliferation treaty, in spite of India defying the treaties and doing the nuclear test. At the same time, the whole furor around Korea, North Korea, or Iran having nuclear bomb, that’s seen as not being okay. But basically the message that we are then sending is the countries like India or Israel are the brown sahibs, that it is okay for them to do it, that they are most responsible citizens of the world and that’s again a big lie. It is buying into this whole concept that Bush has promoted of Islamic fascism that you think that these countries are not okay. These countries are okay to have nuclear technology. I think the question that confronts us all is that when can we as humanity in one unified voice basically be able to say that this is a technology, which is detrimental for us, which is detrimental for our environment, which is putting each one of us at risk, that we cannot put the threads of this technology across just our borders. It affects each one of us. And instead of pointing fingers and looking at which countries are more dangerous and which countries are more responsible to handle this technology, given all the evidence that is in, given the incidents that have taken place, like places in Chenoa, it is time to be able to say no, no to nuclear bombs and no to nuclear technology for ourselves, for our future generations.
Well, it is not just about that because we [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, it is not just about that because we cannot enforce some of the laws or we have not seen them being enforced that we think that there is no point in having international law because we have seen when something is wanted it is done. In the case of the World Trade Organization, the free markets laws, they are being implemented because the people who really want to implement them make sure that they are implemented. But at the same time, if we look at other things such as say freedom from hunger; now that is a right which is ensured through the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Right. It is a right which comes from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And we have seen that even if they have not being enforced but people, social movements are using it to demand that right, whether it is the farmers’ movement which talks about freedom from hunger as being an international human right or we look at people and communities who are struggling to have access to water, they talk about water as a human right. And that has become an important enforcement mechanism because that is helping communities galvanize for the basic rights to come together and to start demanding justice, and I think that is very important and that’s how most of the human rights struggles have been won. So the fact we have it on paper, of course, we have to make sure it can only have change when it is enforced in the power of making it be applied or to be enforced lies within each one of us.
Well, violence is something that is used by [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, violence is something that is used by people who are in power to maintain their power and to gain more power and that is a strategy. If we think of the recent conflict situation in Lebanon and the indiscriminate bombing and Israel aggression in Lebanon, we saw more than thousand people die. The people who are most affected in this conflict are children who do not ask for this war. And yet, if we look at United States government and the members of the Congress, they voted on a bill to call this Israel’s acts as an act of self-defense. They were playing politics. Even leaders who stood up against war, people such as Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, when the vote came to the Congress, all they could say was “present” instead of voting against a bill which talked about -- which was basically about collective punishment of the people of Lebanon as an act of self-defense. So violence, basically over time, we have seen this being used by people in power to maintain their power; and it is the kind of power which basically is the right of few people to decide for the majority. And the most marginalized -- women, children, elderly -- people are subjected to violence so that those few people can remain in power.
I think it’s a very important issue and this [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I think it’s a very important issue and this is about double standards, that as long as we want cheap products we cannot challenge China in some ways because after all China is, I would say, one of the best students of the World Bank policies, the Washington consensus. That is the model of development which has been sent to the Third World countries: use a comparative advantage, comparative advantage that is rooted in the exploitation of people, comparative advantage which is rooted or based on violation of workers’ rights. So, in some ways one could say it is not just the Chinese model of development; it is actually the model of development that has been sent as a solution against poverty. And the comparative advantage has come to mean violation of workers’ rights instead of saying a comparative advantage needs to be based on respect for human rights, respect for workers’ rights. Until we challenge those double standards that and -- these double standards that we as consumers want cheap products but at the same time target other countries for the human rights violations, we will not solve the problem of ensuring workers’ rights, human dignity for all. So, really the battle has to be fought in the belly of the beast and that is us. We can no longer have double standards. We can no longer want our cheap t-shirts or cheap shoes that are made in countries like China or Indonesia and Guatemala and then demand a different kind of human rights. We have to see workers of the world as workers who deserve the same kind of human dignity that needs to be provided to each one of them. Just because they are Chinese or just because they are American, they cannot have different standards. But really again, it comes back to us. This is not about the Chinese government; this is not about people in China keeping quiet; this is really about us, that as long as we do not put a dollar value to the exploitation of workers, violation of workers rights, we will see a world where basically for our consumerism that we want cheap products, we will see people exploited in countries like China.
Yes, there is and we are seeing it in [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Yes, there is and we are seeing it in today’s society and it is through the corporate globalization. Now if you look at Iraq, what is that, what Judoists manage to do in Iraq is colonize; or you look at the fact that Monsanto can actually have intellectual property rights on seeds, taking away the right of farmers to be able to save seeds. It’s nothing else but colonization. Or you look at a handful of water companies being able to privatize water from Cocha-Bamba, Bolivia to India to Stockton, California. It is colonization. Or you look at two grain trading corporations, Cargill and Odeon, being able to control so much of the world’s grain trade. It is nothing but colonization. So, in fact, we are not just looking at a modern version of colonization. We are seeing like the extreme stage of colonization where from our natural resources, from our forests to our seas, to our people, they are being colonized. They are being extracted and used by a handful of people, and this has taken away resources from the majority for the interest of a few.
Freedom is a responsibility as well as a [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Freedom is a responsibility as well as a right. What it really is freedom to be free from hunger, freedom from oppression, freedom from homelessness. Freedom does not mean our freedom to hurt another being. Freedom does not mean to take more than what is really ours on this planet. Freedom is not to exploit our resources. Freedom is not about taking away the freedom of others and that’s why I say it is a responsibility. At the same time, it is our right that we are all as human beings allowed to be free, free of all the things I mentioned before: hunger, oppression, homelessness. And it is not just about where you are in the world. It is the right and a responsibility of every human being, never mind where you are, whether it is in a Third World country, whether you are in Africa or Asia or whether it is in a rich Western nation. It is for each one of us.
Anuradha Mittal:
Well, I think the way the education system [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, I think the way the education system is working today, it does not basically enable a child to bloom. What it actually does is create another brick in the wall. An education system which will not allow us to question, an education system which doesn’t teach us to question, an education system which doesn’t prepare us to be better members of the community of human beings and of be able to live with nature, if it’s an education system which just prepares us to be an engineer, a professional, a doctor, but instead of teaching us to be able to live in this world community, I think that education system is failing. If we look at the world around us, if we look at the growing number of conflicts, I would say that all of us are not being educated, that the education system has completely failed us. The fact that we can actually be divided on the basis of race, on the basis of religion, and the basis of class, I feel our education system has failed us. As long as my own country India where over 150 million children work as child laborers -- they have never seen the inside of a school -- and we, if we keep quiet, it means that our education system has failed us. As long as the large mega dam projects keep covering us such as the Narmada Bachao, Narmada Sarovar dam, or the other dams that are being built around the world, it means that the education system has failed us. As long as we keep seeing unnecessary wars of this world, it’s pretty obvious that our education system has failed us. I do believe education can enable us to be better people, but the current system of education has failed us, and the question then is what do we put in place. I think we know the answers, and it’s really about how do we start implementing it.
I would say actually that the wealth of the [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I would say actually that the wealth of the Western world would actually depend not on the Third World being poor, but really it depends on the Third World being prosperous. A Nigerian chief once said, “If you will not share your wealth with us, we will share our poverty with you.” So if you want global peace, we have to talk about equitable distribution. We have to talk about a world where the Third World is not seen as the one that is just giving its resources -- and when it’s not given, they are taken way -- whether through trade agreements or whether through force, [assets, open markets, open fire]. So, as long as we have that, there will be no prosperity even for the Western world. The only way to ensure security, the only way to ensure prosperity is actually ensuring that there is equitable distribution; and the Third World is not poor but it is able to enjoy and have access and control over the resources that are its. It is willing to share them like it has. If we look at food, 80% of the food that is eaten in the Western world, the germplasm of that came from the Third World. So, we have to acknowledge and respect the fact that the Third World has been willing to share its resources rather than thinking of we need to take more to maintain our standard of living, our prosperity, our wealth because that again is a myth and needs to be challenged.
When I first saw this question, I thought [...]
Anuradha Mittal: When I first saw this question, I thought of, if there was a way to bring this question to the people in Bhopal who in 1984 were affected by the gas leak from the Union Carbide factory. And out of that settlement basically which still has to reach many people is less than $800. First of all, can we actually determine what is the dollar value of a human life, of the communities who were ravished and continue to suffer even today, continue to go blind, continue to die, continue to suffer from all kind of respiratory diseases? So given that, yeah, I did want to bring this question to them and they would answer why do we think some lives are more valuable and how they -- what happened to them has been so ignored by a company like Union Carbide and time has gone by. I think I am guessing that they would say that the answer lies in the power structures. The people who have the power have decided that the people whose power has been taken away that they are meaningless, that their lives do not matter as much or they don’t count as much. But, it’s a matter of time when people organize as the people in the Bhopal have, whether it’s a women group, the people who were affected, they have organized to take back their power and to be able to say that it is not for somebody or some corporation to decide whose life is more valuable. And so, it is not really we, I would say, that we consider some lives as being more valuable. There is some among us who might think so but not all.
First of all, I would say that we have to [...]
Anuradha Mittal: First of all, I would say that we have to get over this idea that “one size fits all”; that’s not how it works. So, it’s not about whether it is micro-finance or macro-finance but really the ability of developing countries to be able to decide for themselves, for the people in those countries to have the freedom instead of the pressure from outside to decide what is going to be the best for themselves. Definitely, in terms of micro-financing schemes, where the communities have power over the projects and the whole democratic process, that is the way to go. But in terms of solutions itself, we have to leave the answers to Asia, Africa, Latin America and let the people decide for themselves instead of “one answer fits all.” We have seen with solutions that have been offered of Third World countries grow cash crops for export and that is going to be the solution out of poverty, which has basically converted Third World countries into this exotic food baskets while the people, the citizens are starving. So given that, I would say, yes, in terms of rather than this large mega scale development projects which are being sent to Third World countries, which basically displace people, work against nature, work against people, have to be dismantled. We have to talk about building power from the bottom up, where people at the grass roots level can decide for themselves what works, what solutions work for them: is it a cooperative they want to start or whatever it is, but basically something which is rooted in local economy. So, I think the answer comes down, therefore, to local economies which are sustainable, which can flourish. We need to support them. They are not about “big is beautiful” but really cutting back to the principle of “small is beautiful.”
The women are still at disadvantage because [...]
Anuradha Mittal: The women are still at disadvantage because they are discriminated against. It is about the power structures in the society, which has kept women away from places of power, never mind, the role that they play in our societies, the women -- the role that we play as mothers and sisters, as daughters, but more important is women ourselves. We have been discriminated. So the question is not just about why we are at a disadvantage, the question is why are we still discriminated. What would it take to break through those glass ceilings, those barriers, to be able to soar up in the sky, whether it is in the United States or England or whether it is in a Third World country or an Islamic nation? We keep fighting for the same battles. When we tend to focus on women being used as guinea pigs for prescriptions around say birth control, but at the same time taking away the right of women to be able to choose in the country like the U.S., it is true, we are still denied a basic right over our own bodies. So, it is a discrimination which perpetuates that. It is the power structures which work against us that prevent us from being able to have those positions and bases of power. But at the same time, I just also want to acknowledge the amazing goddesses and the women leaders who have inspired me and continue to inspire me everyday, and this is a struggle that is a work in progress and with everyday we see women basically taking more power and more in charge of things.
Violence begets violence. That’s what I [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Violence begets violence. That’s what I will start and that’s what I believe in, that to save life, we cannot take life of another. Killing a murderer is basically murder, being a murderer yourself. So, given that, yes, resistance can take different forms and we have seen that in our own country India, the way we won independence, resistance came in different forms. But the overall principle is that you cannot fight for justice by being unjust. And as long as we have injustice in the world and we resort to the same ways, we have actually given up hope because we are resorting to the power and giving into the ways of the exploiter. So I feel that when it comes to oppression and the acts of oppression committed by the oppressor, we are trying to be different and our resistance has to be different. We cannot copy the actions of our oppressor and that struggle cannot be justified; and at the same time know that there are going to be different forms of resistance, but violent struggle cannot justify its goal, its aid, and its intentions.
Well, I think the solution is not just about [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, I think the solution is not just about removing drugs from the world and suddenly there would be no suffering. I think we have to look at why do people actually take drugs. Is it because of the suffering that they go into that? Is it like you said, suggest, is it really about the relationships that we have formed, relationships with one another, relationships with the families, relationships with the environment, with the communities, or the absence of those relationships? So, it is far more complex rather than just criminalizing drugs and removing them, but we will actually -- because that is a symptom but we have to figure out the cause; and I believe it is a lot about our relationships with our families, with the communities, with our own selves, with the fact that this relationship is not based on love. For example, if I am doing drugs, I think a part of it has to do with the fact that I don’t love myself anymore, that something has shifted, that I’ve stopped caring and loving for myself, that relationship is lacking that I can go down that path. So, yes, it is true that you cannot snap your fingers, remove drugs, and that’s the end of suffering. It is far more complex than that.
I think it’s when I think about AIDS in [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I think it’s when I think about AIDS in Africa, I just don’t think about it as AIDS in Africa, I see in the global world as AIDS in humanity. It is a disease which is confronting each one of us. It is not just an issue for Africa; it is not just -- the deaths in Africa are not just a concern for the people of Africa but they are all our concern. So given that, I think our responsibility -- well just look at the budget for the war in Iraq, over $300 billion budget for this war in Iraq could basically fought AIDS initiative at least 30 times over or more for more than 10 years, 24 years. So, given that, it feels like that is how big our responsibility is. We do have the resources that we can ensure that people do not have to die of this disease. We know that there are now treatments and can work. But as long as we have things such as intellectual property rights which will keep generic medicines away from people, we are not just shirking responsibility, we are causing more deaths because of AIDS in Africa. So, our responsibility basically is to be challenging that people’s lives cannot be about just money, that when we have something like AIDS, we cannot talk about how pharmaceutical industry can make more profits. But this is time for us to take our responsibility seriously and say this is not just about a problem in Africa, it’s all our problem. And we as humanity need to demand that medicines be made available to people who need them, better budgets are made available to people who need them instead of going into military budgets or whatever.
Well, God! There are so many people that I [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, God! There are so many people that I would say who are an inspiration to me. But, I would really like to acknowledge the people, whose names will never be known, people who will never be acknowledged, and these are the people who refused to give up their struggle for justice, for human rights, for peace, people who continue to standup to fight injustice. And here I think of all those people who continue to take campaigns around the school of the Americas in the United States. I think of those peace activists who continue to stand in front of the tanks as they roll in to demand peace in the world. I think of [malama] and the people of Plachimada in Kerala who stood up to a big corporation like Coca-Cola to demand their right to water; or I think of the people of Cocha-Bamba in Bolivia who stood up against Bechtel, a multinational, a huge big corporation. I don’t know their individual names, I don’t know their individual addresses; but they are the people who inspire me every day, every second to learn from them and to continue the struggle without giving up hope, without losing courage.
Well, I don’t think that’s true that we need [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, I don’t think that’s true that we need to have patent laws if you are going to have creativity or innovation. That’s a total myth. If you go back and look at the history of innovation, the amazing contributions that have been made in this world, they weren’t just all driven by profits or intellectual property rights. People were driven to make these contributions because they wanted to contribute to society; they wanted to contribute to the betterment of humanity. It is a lie again that has been fed to us that till we have intellectual property rights, till individuals or corporations can trademark or copyright things, we will not make any innovation. That’s a myth. As human beings, it is our nature to be curious; it is our nature to contribute. And what has happened is that these myths have basically taken away our ability and our desire to do that. So, in fact, I believe it is time to dump all intellectual property rights. It is time to say that there can be no patents on seeds, for example. Look at the contribution farmers have made. Over centuries, over different generations, farmers have been working in the fields making those contributions and passing it out. We now think that all innovations in agriculture took place in basically by people in white coats in labs. That’s not true. That innovation, as far as agriculture is concerned, has taken place on the fields, not because people are looking for intellectual property rights. They were looking for increasing production so the communities, humanity could be fed. So, I am against intellectual property rights, and I would say if you really want innovation, if you really want growth, if you really want betterment of humanity, it is time to share.
Yes, there is an ecological limit to [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Yes, there is an ecological limit to economic growth and not just ecological limit; there is an economic limit on economic growth. When you have economic systems which are unsustainable, which are inequitable, they are basically unsustainable and they will, even despite the growth, will start falling back and will not move further. So, they are both -- if an economic system is unsustainable, there is an ecological limit. We cannot, if we look at the example of the Asian tigers, they might have boasted of economic growth, but the kind of environmental destruction that was caused, there was definitely a limit to it. And at the same time, we saw with the Asian financial crisis that that endless economic growth is not possible. So, the kind of system we go into, if it is unsustainable, it will end.
Well, I think with any technology that is [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, I think with any technology that is allowed to kind of get to a size where it becomes the predominant force, it does tend to control us. And in the case of Internet, there are some very scary things. For example, this increasing consumerism that we are giving out information about ourselves, it is being collected. The fact that the corporations are monitoring our spending patterns to learn more about us -- what we spend our money on, what kind of books we like, what kind of DVD’s we buy, what kind of places we like to visit -- it is telling a lot about us to these external forces, these corporations especially. So, yes, there is danger. So, I think the real question is not just about technology being bad or it is good, but really the question is who controls the technology, who owns the technology, and to what use it is being put.
I think this is a very good question; and it [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I think this is a very good question; and it is not about human beings being just domesticated, but it is really about our minds being colonized. As we see people fixated in front of the television, for example, or in front of the Internet or in front of a video game, we see our curiosity disappear, we see our ability to ask questions disappear, we see our ability to find the answers for ourselves disappear because we are hoping to be spoon-fed and we are believing whatever is being told to us. And that is leading to the colonization of our minds and our hearts which prevents us from really seeing while we are watching TV, something which prevents us from hearing while we are listening to a television. And I think that’s a challenge before us. That if you want to fight these enclosures of a mind, that we want to be who we really are and find and seek the truth for ourselves, we will have to break these chains that basically are capturing our minds and our ears, our ability to listen and learn from each other. It is about the human connection again. We cannot connect with something which is an inanimate object at the end of the day. It takes away our power to feel. It takes away our ability to learn. It takes away our ability to sense. It takes away our ability to respect, honor the other.
For communities to be created that are [...]
Anuradha Mittal: For communities to be created that are sustainable, we would have to have these communities based on the principle of local economy, where we just don’t see ourselves as consumers. We have to think of the word consumer as coming from the word consumption tuberculosis or the fire that consumes, but to really build relationships in the community where we are seeing ourselves also as the stewards of the land, not just something that extracts and uses but is also giving back. This is not just about our rights as consumers, but it is really also about us as communities as the caregivers and the caretakers.
Sold to the highest bidder, water has to be [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Sold to the highest bidder, water has to be seen as a human right. And once it is seen as a human right, it becomes the obligation of the government, it becomes an obligation of the international community of states to ensure that everyone has access to plain drinking water instead of allowing a few corporations to privatize and control water and then sell it to the highest bidder. And it will also take basically changes in our lifestyle, our ability to demand water as a human right and our ability to make sure that our demand for human right to water is met. It is time basically to turn on those taps when we want a glass of water and conserving water instead of reaching out for a bottle of bottled water.
Definitely. I cannot understand what kind [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Definitely. I cannot understand what kind of technology we have been talking about that which can just be harmful in the short-term and then become beneficial in the long-term. I do believe in the principle of or the precautionary principle, which is to err on the side of safety, if we do not have all the proof and we have to go by the evidence. If a technology is not working in the short-term, if it is working against the interest of the people, against the environment, against the health of people, it needs to be stopped. So, I think given that when we are concerned with technology, given our experiences with nuclear technology, given our experience with genetic engineering, we have to follow the precautionary principle, that if we do not know what the end result will be, we have to take precautions before adopting any technology, releasing it into our environment and our lives.
Well, I would say one of the first steps [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, I would say one of the first steps that can be taken to ensure that we don’t destroy our biodiversity completely is by ensuring that this industrial agriculture, which is being allowed to go in and replace our family farmers with corporate farms, to replace our farmers with machines, to replace our biodiversity with monocultures is stopped right away. Two, I would say that corporations which have been allowed to gain more and more control over our seeds remain in public domain, that the seeds remain in the hands of the farmer and communities who have been the best seed savers and the keepers. In terms of poverty, I would say one of the first things that can be done is to institute policies which are aimed at eradicating the poor, are aimed at eradicating poverty itself. We are in a world where we see basically, instead of ending poverty, policies such as welfare-to-farm in the United States or the reduction of social safety nets are small government model which basically takes away the state’s role in preventing poverty. Those policies will have to go.
Yeah, television can be a good media for [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Yeah, television can be a good media for communicating, but it is not that we just use it for spreading unimportant information; we actually are using it to spread lies. Because it has come to be taken over by again a few people controlling the media, controlling television in spreading news, information which benefits them, which is about them seeking more and more control. So, it is an important tool. It is not the end in itself; but if it is taken over then by the forces that shouldn’t have control over it, they will determine to what use it is put.
Well, genetically engineered crops are being [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, genetically engineered crops are being introduced in our environment, in our food system, on our market shelves, because of corporations like Monsanto, who basically gain from this technology. They are the ones who are going to make the money from it. So, using this extensive PR campaign, a Public Relations campaign, which I believe is based on poor washing, that this is the way to feed the hungry world; or it is based on green washing, that we will be using less pesticides is better for the environment; or because of hope dashing, that we have no alternative, that the population is increasing and we need to increase the food production. We have managed to convince the people that we should move in the direction of adopting genetically engineered foods. And when countries, countries such as India, Zambia and others have stood up and said no to this technology -- for example, in year 2000 when Zambia said no to genetically modified corn which was sent by U.S. as food aid -- they have come under a lot of pressure and blackmail. So, that is another way this technology is being introduced through the absence of democracy and through putting pressure and blackmail on Third World countries. And then there are the free trade agreements, which say that protecting environment, protecting our health is a barrier to trade. In case of Europe, we have seen United States use the World Trade Organization and the technology around trade barriers to promote genetically engineered foods. But, basically, I would say we are taking this incalculable risk of introducing these crops because of the corporate power, because of the consolidation of our food system, because of the greed of the corporations with, who have decided that the health of people, the health of our environment, saving of seeds, livelihoods of farmers are less important than the corporate profits.
I think in today’s world where science is [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I think in today’s world where science is more and more driven by whether in the academia or in the private sector by corporations, it can no longer be said that it is objective or it is neutral. It has come to mean basically knowledge system which is controlled by few corporations to promote their interest. The kind of research, for example, that is done today -- take the example of genetic engineering again. It has been promoted as a solution to world’s hunger. Now we know that they grow enough food to feed people around the world. I mean, right now we grow enough food to provide over 2,720 kilocalories per person around the world. This is enough to feed everyone in the world, enough to make us fat. But, when we have technology being introduced and being produced are promoted because of corporate interests, you cannot talk about the technology being neutral or being objective. It has a certain rationale behind it, which is to promote the corporate interest of those corporations that are promoting the sciences. We have seen that in the academia. If you look at the research agendas, they are being dictated by companies such as Monsanto, Bayer and the rest.
Well, we can through our actions show others [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, we can through our actions show others what to do about climate change. It is of course about reflection about our own lifestyle and making changes the way we live on this planet. But in addition to individual action that we take, which can range from questioning and changing our consumption patterns to questioning, “Do I really need to drive and have one car per person or the latest SUV or Hummer?” The other things that we need to do which is going to be very important and that is political action while composting, changing industrial agriculture, and the kind of food we eat is important. But, it’s also important to target politically on our leaders to change their policies because you and I can change and we need to change that. We have to focus on the local economy, that our food comes not from some faraway distant place which travels how many miles, thousands of miles to come on our table, but it is really also about questioning this insane trade system which allows for this food to travel. So, on one hand while we focus on building connections with say our farming community that we eat what is locally produced, but we also have to start putting pressure on the political leaders, those policy makers that they change the policies which are contributing to climate change and turn it into a climate justice issue, that we can no longer have governments which will go and fight wars for the sake of oil, that we as communities can say we do not want to depend on oil, that we want a different kind of agriculture where we do not have to again need gas and contribute to this climate change. So, both individual actions in our own life from composting to whatever are very significant, and then political action is very important.
I think the first thing we all have to [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I think the first thing we all have to acknowledge is that the model that the United States is based on is a failed model. It has failed economically, it has failed ecologically, it has failed socially. And once we can understand that, we have to really ask ourselves, “Do we want this model to be exported to the rest of the world?” If it is a model which has created inequities, it has failed for the people of the United States, it has failed the environment of the United States, it is an unfair model which does not work for the rest of the world. Do we really want to follow that so called model of development? Once we’ve done that, the answers are right there.
I look forward to listening to the answer to [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I look forward to listening to the answer to this question from other people because I think I have a lot to learn from that.
Well, it looks like a child waiting to be [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, it looks like a child waiting to be born, waiting to come into this world It is peaceful; it is beautiful; it is hopeful. It is one which does not know discrimination based on race, religion, class, gender.
Well, I am sitting next to Jerry so I am [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, I am sitting next to Jerry so I am going to ask you to listen to his answer because I think he is the best one to answer this question and then come back to me.
I actually believe in the human spirit, in [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I actually believe in the human spirit, in the independence of the human spirit. So, I do not believe that human beings will ever agree and will be connecting to machines. That’s what makes us different: our ability to feed, our ability to hear, our ability to respond which machines cannot. So, I don’t think that is possible because I believe in the human spirit and the desire of humanity to keep that spirit be alive and going forward.
Bill, actually I would ask you how you would [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Bill, actually I would ask you how you would define decent education. What is decent education? And, Bill, I would ask you to define what does contribution really look like? Is it something that is just something relevant when you can put a dollar value to it? It is something which goes into the public offering, or how do we define that because I can think of a lot of people who might not have gone to the school but they have made a contribution. Again, I am thinking of the people of Plachimada in Kerala, who might not have had some Ivy League university education, but they have stood up and taught the rest of the world how you fight a corporation that’s trying to take away your water. So for me, the question is really I need to understand what you mean by contribution and a decent education.
I think we feel alone because we come alone [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I think we feel alone because we come alone into this world and we go alone. But the question that I’ve grappled with is that when we have so many people, why are we lonely? Why are we lonely? And I think it’s because of the fragmentation of our communities, because of this materialistic consumer world that we live in, where instead of human beings, we turn into consumers; that we are of value only when we are buying. So, given that, when we are disconnecting from our families, from our communities, from the environment, from nature, from our religion, from our faith, from our courage, from our belief system, yes, it gets very lonely.
Well, there can be no technological fix to [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, there can be no technological fix to problems such as hunger and poverty. Instead of a technological fix, we need real social economic policy changes. So, if you look at a country like Brazil, where less than 1 percent of the richest population controls over 50 percent of the land, you cannot solve the problems by merely a technological fix such as providing a computer or an Internet. You have to really focus on providing resources such as access and control over land to the majority of people so that they can grow their own food. They can meet their own human needs. So, yes, Internet and computers, if they are there, can provide more information. But the kind of changes we are talking about to deal with hunger, poverty, some of the most pressing problems of the time, it’s going to take more than a technological fix. It’s going to require political will of the governments, of the policy makers, which will have to respond to social movements to make these changes.
I would have to say that it is a saying by [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I would have to say that it is a saying by Hafez, a Sufi poet who said, “Fear is the cheapest room in the house. My dear, you deserve better living conditions. Fear is the cheapest room in the house. My dear, you deserve better living conditions.” And every day I remind myself that it is about courage that one can never be defeated till we give up hope, till we give up the courage, till we accept the fear that they want us to live in and so Hafez is my tree and inspires me each day.
Anuradha Mittal:
Anuradha Mittal:
Well, it is easier today to get a can of [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, it is easier today to get a can of Coca-Cola if you have the money in your pocket and the same goes for having access to a plain drinking water. Increasingly, all over the world, we are seeing privatization of our commons, and water is a very important common that is being privatized as we speak. Because we are not seeing water as a human right, that we need water for our survival, it is not a luxury item. It is a human right. And as long as we don’t see our commons and people’s access and control and nurture of commons as a basic human right, we will see companies such as Coca-Cola being able to go into countries like India, pollute the ground water. You will see them being able to market their, what I call, the sewage of the industrialized world into communities, which is like a pesticide being sold in countries like India, whereas the communities will not have access to clean drinking water. It is also the withdrawal of the state from the role it needs to play in terms of ensuring that there is money in the budgets, in the national budgets to ensure basic needs of people. And water is definitely, again, like I said before, not a luxury item, but a need and therefore a human right.
Well, what I have learnt from Africa is that [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, what I have learnt from Africa is that one never can give up hope. What I have learnt from Africa is what freedom is all about. What I have learnt from Africa is that it is an incredibly beautiful rich continent with amazing people, that it is a continent that despite all efforts in all these centuries to colonize, to pillage, to plunder, that it will not give up and it continues to fight for freedom and it continues to fight for its beauty, and for its resources for its own people. What I have learnt from Africa is that instead of what the media would like to tell us that it is a basket case, it is actually a bread basket. And the reason it faces hunger is not because Africa cannot produce food for its people, but it is the external forces, the corporations, the colonization that has been responsible for its problems. But like I said, when I think about Africa, I think of hope, I think of beauty, I think of music, I think of dancing, I think of Nelson Mandela, I think of the townships where communities refuse to give up hope, and they continue their struggle.
Well, I believe that our unity lies in [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, I believe that our unity lies in diversity. So, if we are talking about one unified global community, it would basically require the preservation of local cultures. It cannot be – otherwise, we would not have a global community. We would have a single community. So, the only way we can have a global community is by having those different local cultures represented for it to be a global community.
Well, the process of listening has already [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, the process of listening has already started with the questions that were asked. And I think the first process of listening starts with the questioning that each one of us has started as we got involved in this process: me as a participant here at the table or you when you were writing your question. Secondly, now the question is how do we spread the word about it, and I think that’s where this power of getting the world to listen lies. It will all depend on each one of us of what we do with our actions. Are we going to tell our friends about it? Are we going to bring it to a church or mosque, a synagogue and talk about these questions, ask each of the questions, take the time to talk to each other, to share with each other? And so I think, yeah, to get the world to listen will depend on each one of us, what we do with the knowledge that we find as we look at the answers, how we are going to spread it around.
Well, for me, the today’s most unreported [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, for me, the today’s most unreported story is that as we gather around this table in Berlin, the empire is dismantling. It has not been reported that U.S. had lost the Iraq war the day it decided to go into Iraq, and that is why I say the empire is dismantling as we gather around today and that’s where the hope lies. So, we see a lot of plunder, destruction, conflict in the news. What we do not hear about is the hope, hope that’s coming from the knowledge that the system of this empire building where U.S. takes the lead today, it is dismantling; it is on its way out.
Well, two answers to a single question can [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, two answers to a single question can be right but still contradict each other because there is no such thing as one correct answer. All answers come from our experiences, from our circumstances, and given that there can be many many answers, and that is the beauty and the possibility of this world.
I guess I would have to say, you can be what [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I guess I would have to say, you can be what you choose to be. The decision is yours, and that’s an incredible piece of knowledge to have, to know who you are, and what you can give, what you can contribute, and where your happiness lies. Actually, the other thing I would also add is that change starts with your own self. Do not try to change the world. Just make sure the world doesn’t change you, world with its corruption, with its destruction, with its wars. That if you believe in something, pursue that path. You are already victorious that you stood up to that.
I think every attempt to save time basically [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I think every attempt to save time basically takes away our ability to experience life. And if we are not experiencing life, that causes stress for me.
I think this is a great question. I think [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I think this is a great question. I think instead of smart bombs, which are basically a very stupid idea, we would have seen killing of less people. We would have seen our technology being used for better things. If the technology had not been driven by market forces, instead of something like genetic engineering which has resulted in hundreds and thousands of farmers in my country India taking their own lives, we would have seen focus on maybe different kind of technologies. We would have seen innovation taking place in sustainable ecological agriculture rather than focusing on these technology solutions to problems of hunger and increase production. We would have seen technology being used or investment being made in technology to deal with issues, for example, like how to eradicate malaria, how to eradicate tuberculosis rather than focusing on how do we basically make more profits. So, I think that has been the worst things. But like I said, if technology has been used to conquer people, it has been used to take over markets; it does not result in a resolution.
Well, I think the obvious answer is that it [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, I think the obvious answer is that it is a responsibility of each one of us to manage the world’s resources. Each one of us is using the world’s resources; and we cannot pass on the responsibility of governance and management to someone else because when we manage and we are using them, it also means that we have to be the ones who are taking care of the world’s resources. So, on one hand, we need to support and we need to appreciate the indigenous cultures, the small farmers who have been the stewards of the land for example. So, on one hand, we have to learn from that traditional knowledge, from the indigenous knowledge, how do we manage the world’s resources, but in a way that we all can be participants in the process of this management, that we are not just the ones who are users but we are also the caregivers and the caretakers.
Anuradha Mittal:
I see genetic engineering as an imperfection [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I see genetic engineering as an imperfection itself. So, I don’t know how one could use technology to correct. And then more important, I am not sure I understand what is an imperfection as who gets to define what a defect is? Who gets to define what is imperfect? If all of us were to do that, we would have a society like that Hitler tried to create. So, I am a little bit wary of when people talk about using technology to actually fix imperfections or fix so-called defects. I think it’s the differences that make this world far more beautiful and perfect.
Well, in India in my culture, we believe in [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, in India in my culture, we believe in Satyameva Jayate, that is truth will always live. So actually truth cannot be manufactured; facts can be manufactured but truth cannot be manufactured. Facts can be manufactured, for example, a certain country has weapons of mass destruction; therefore, we need to go in and invade that country. But in terms of the truth that people will be free because freedom cannot be denied. It cannot be taken away. The fact that Palestine will be framed is again a truth that cannot be denied. The fact that there is enough food to feed everyone in the world is actually a truth. You know the thing that genetic engineering is the solution towards hunger; that’s a fact that has been manufactured by the corporations, but it is not the truth. So, truth is something that cannot be denied. Facts can be manufactured over and over again, and we know news media does that. It does it very well. It is not in the business of just reporting and providing us the news. It has gotten into the business of manufacturing news for us, but at the end of the day I do believe truth prevails because Satyameva Jayate.
Well, again, I don’t know if I can do a [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, again, I don’t know if I can do a listing of the three most important, I don’t think. There are so many. I think there are so many values that need to be imbibed by each one of us as children. So, I’ll just mention three. It does not mean that they are the most important. One is, I would say about courage, to be courageous. Do not let fear deter him or her from his or her path that they want to walk on. Second, I would say to honor and love the other; that is very important. And third, I would say to be taught that life is a gift and that all life around us too is a gift and, therefore, it needs to be loved and honored.
I am going to listen to the answers of my [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I am going to listen to the answers of my colleague sitting next to me.
What moves me? Well, let see. I think to [...]
Anuradha Mittal: What moves me? Well, let see. I think to know what I -- not only what I struggle against, but what I struggle for. Yeah, that’s what moves me, to know what I am struggling for, what I want, not just fighting against something. Another thing that really moves me, the innocence of a child, the faith that a child can put in a grownup.
Anuradha Mittal:
I think Simon Retallack who is also sitting [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I think Simon Retallack who is also sitting on this table will have a better answer to this question.
Well, I think we believe more in nationality [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, I think we believe more in nationality rather than humanity because these national borders, these artificial borders that have been built, they have actually built enclosures around our minds, our hearts, our souls; and it has been done to promote a vested interest. People who have drawn these borders would gain from these artificial borders being put and we have allowed our minds and souls to be enclosed. So, we will have to break these enclosures around our minds and hearts and souls if we are ever going to really be, see ourselves as one humanity, where we can feel each other’s pain, where we can laugh together, where race, nationality, religion, cannot separate us. So, it is really getting outside the cultural, this cultural separation and to start talking together as a humanity.
Well, I think one reason as to why our food [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, I think one reason as to why our food is of such bad quality is because we have become so disconnected and so detached from our food system. We basically have allowed our food and our agriculture to be taken over by a handful of corporations, who basically are dictating what is grown, how it is grown, and who gets to eat it. But the good news is because we know how that has happened, we can change that, that we as communities can use our dollar votes or currency votes which is basically by letting people know that we will not be buying the bad foods so we can vote with our money, that we as people recognize that food is very personal, it’s very political, it goes right inside us. So, if we can take the power, I think we can change the bad food system. But at the same time, we can vote by contacting our elected officials that we want food policies which are based on the principle of food sovereignty, which is based on the principle of safe food, on the human right to safe and nutritious food. So, it is about connecting again with the food system and recognizing, for example, tomatoes do not come out of a can that you buy in a supermarket, that there is no such thing as cheap food. It takes a lot of our resources, our earth, air, and water to grow food. So, once food becomes both personal and political, we can challenge this bad food that is put before us. We can change our food system; and once you’ve recognized that that food is inherently not just a human right but important to us for a survival, we can change that.
I think the religion of my God is reflected [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I think the religion of my God is reflected in every corner of the world, in every leaf, in every speck of dirt, in every flower. It is the diversity of that religion that makes it such a beautiful religion. It speaks different languages. It is reflected in different books. It is reflected in the different colors. It is reflected in the sunsets and the sunrise. It is reflected in the beauty of the moon. Yeah, that is the religion of my goddess. In the sea, in the waves, in the dolphins, yeah, it’s like ocean song.
Well, I remember going to Zurich Airport and [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, I remember going to Zurich Airport and seeing Starbucks. That was the only coffee shop at the Zurich Airport. Or you go to China and I’ve seen McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken or I go to Delhi and I see the same McDonald’s or I go to Prague and I see the same McDonald’s. As long as we allow the takeover of the places where we live which you call home to become into something else that instead of just a sharing that it has become monopolization of just one culture. As we find languages disappearing around the world into one language, for example, English being spoken more and more in different parts of the world, it actually does not bring us together. It does not unite us. What we find is basically we are all becoming replicas of the United States or its corporations and that is not a good symbol for any of us. It is the start of destruction.
Well, as an immigrant in the United States [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, as an immigrant in the United States when I am asked where I am from, the first thing I say is, “I am from India or I am Indian.” And I think until we have dealt with the issues of power relationships, it will be very hard for people to forget where they come from or who they are first. Given the inequitable society, for example a country like United States is, it will not be easy for many of us to be able to say we are just Americans because we have come from different parts of the world. We are who we are. We face discrimination everyday because of where we come from and who we are. So, I think till we can deal with this power structures, till we can deal with this racism that is so pervasive in our societies, in our community, it will be very very hard for people to be able to just identify as one or the other. At the same time, I think it is not just about where we come from. We need to get to a point where we can actually say that we are all the same, we are human beings, but we have a long way to go before we can say that, and that again goes back to the question of power structures, the existing racism, the existing sexism, and discrimination on the basis of where we come from.
Well, I would say what we all need or all [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, I would say what we all need or all young adult need is to experience life to become a world-changer. If one looks at Buddha, it was really once he went out and experienced life that he witnessed fame, he witnessed suffering, he witnessed anguish in the world when he was able to walk away and seek answers to that pain, seek answers to ending misery in the world, and that’s what I think is going to prompt people to become world-changers. Yes, experience life.
Well, I think Internet is an interesting way [...]
Anuradha Mittal: Well, I think Internet is an interesting way of sharing our experiences. People would say that there are no solutions to the world’s problems, people would actually -- are being told that the only way to increase food production is to say through genetic engineering. But actually, we have incredible examples of success around the world where communities, whether it’s through urban gardens, whether it is through community supported agriculture, whether it is through sustainable ecological agriculture, whether it is communities saying no to GM food, there are amazing examples of hope that we can share through the Internet. So, Internet is not the end result, but it can be a medium through which we can solve and enhance the capacity of our own communities. We can share our experiences, we can learn from each other, and social movements so far have used this Internet as a technology in a very interesting way. If you look at mobilizations against trade agreements, you think of Seattle where activists were talking to each other, sharing experiences, garnering knowledge, or you look at the WTO Ministerial in Hong Kong in December last year. People were able to organize. So, it is not really about technology being the answer, but we as communities can use this technology for basically improving our access to information, for communicating with each other, and learning from each other.
I think for me if there is to be a future [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I think for me if there is to be a future for the cities, cities will need to be self-sufficient. Let me give you an example. For example, instead of your private vacant parking lots, you would have urban gardens, where cities will be focused on growing food to meet the needs of the community, to be self-sufficient instead of depending on a model where the food flies in from different parts of the world. And if we don’t do things like that, instead of cities we will just have urban sprawl. We would have ecological disasters. We would have economic pitfalls. We would have not communities but fragmented societies living together.
I think my question would be that is it [...]
Anuradha Mittal: I think my question would be that is it correct for people and the societies, which are built on everyone having a car, the latest model of SUVs, the latest models of hummers, are we really in a position to ask the question what if all Chinese or all Indians wanted a car? The question needs to be “Do we as humanity knowing what’s happening with these climate change and other problems that we have, do we really each one of us want a car?” So, it is not just about the Chinese or the Indians or some other part of the world. It is a question that I ask myself, “Do I need a car?” “Why can’t I have a decent public transport system?” “How come money that, resources that are spent on, say wars, just because of oil in other nations, why they are not used to build decent public infrastructure systems?” “Why they are not used to build public economies and local economies?” We will not be needing cars in these modes of transportation.”
