‽istis reclaims G7
theorems, equations, balance sheets and balancing acts (weekending
May 8th)
Several
years’ ago, ‽istis noted a passage in ‘A Letter from the Street’ printed in the magazine
of the UK section of an international human rights organisation[i]
“Suffering and success are two sides of the same
coin. If you enjoy success without having suffered, it is because others have
suffered before you; and if you suffer without success, it is because others
will succeed after you.”
And
this week, as
‽ so many of the people of India suffer in the awful flickering light
of the many, many cremations and the spotlight of the media;
‽ others suffer in the shadows left by the ever-progressing
(but not necessarily progressive) news cycle;
‽ others still (individuals, families, groups and
communities) suffer in the darkness of the hidden corners, the closed doors,
the silence and the silencing…
‽istis
listens to the words of the UK’s Foreign Secretary[ii]
at the start of the G7 meetings preluding a Cornish coastal summit – global challenges,
international challenges; brand ‘Global Britain’ riding the waves again?
“We
believe in…
·
‘keeping trade open’
·
‘standing up for open societies, for human rights and
democracy’
·
‘safeguarding and protecting public goods – whether it’s
the environment and tackling climate change’
·
‘but also dealing with pandemics and public health more
generally. The Covax mechanism I think is so particularly important at this very
sensitive time for the developing countries, the poorer countries and the most
vulnerable countries around the world.’
And
‽istis looked back and wondered about the balance and the dynamics that (perhaps,
possibly, maybe) have been working their way out over the past few centuries…?
·
if ‘Global Britain’ had not been quite so global…
·
if trade was more equitable and had not included the buying, selling and traffic of people…
·
if the accumulation of wealth and profit and all that
it bought (for some individuals, families, groups and communities still so
evident around us) had not been built on terms of seeming exploitation,
inequality, inequity, injustice, unfairness…
·
if open societies were open to all and people, groups and communities minoritised no
longer…
·
if public goods were not at risk from private profit…
·
if climate change had not seemingly been caused substantially by the ‘now-developed’
and rapidly-developing nations…
· if the poorer and the most vulnerable countries were not essentially defined by their comparison with those countries who had perhaps helped create that very poverty and vulnerability...
…Well, how different would we all have had to be? And how different might we still yet have to be – to balance or re-balance, and to work out the current and future questions, problems and tests that the 'GAll' and we all face?
©
Pistis
NB: further reflections and comments linked to
this week’s theme and past blog
entries to be found on Twitter: replies, retweets (which don’t necessarily
indicate approval, sometimes the very opposite!) and ‘likes’:
@Pistis_wonders
