Alternatives International

Accessible Education for a Prosperous and Just Society

Georgina Alonso — 2012-06-02T03:40:45Z

Students in Quebec have been on strike for over three months in response to the provincial government's decision to raise tuition fees by seventy-five per cent, reflecting a lack of support for low- and middle-income families and students. In the wake of the 2008 economic crisis, the Quebec government, along with governments around the world, is putting the politics of austerity above public services and thereby further indebting the poor and future generations. Students and their supporters in various parts of the world are flexing their democratic muscles in opposition to government priorities that penalize the most vulnerable populations—such as students—in the name of austerity.

Conservatives everywhere have responded with the same condescending rhetoric. In Chile, President Sebastián Piñera has repeatedly reminded angry students that “Nothing is free in this life. Someone has to pay.” In Quebec, students are reminded of the province's massive debt. It is not, however, the students who are responsible for the global economic crisis of 2008. It is not the students who run the banks, corporations, or governments that have wasted taxpayer money and failed the majority of citizens for the benefit of the few. Why should students be the ones who bear the economic burden rather than those responsible?

Tuition fees in Canada have been rising much faster than the rate of inflation. Those in the government who benefited from much lower tuition fees cannot claim that this is just part of the student experience when their own student experiences were much more publicly funded. People forget that tuition fees are not the only costs of attending university; the costs of textbooks, administrative fees, and, for those students supporting themselves entirely, the costs of living, need to be factored in.

The affordability of society to pay tuition fees is not the same thing as an individual or family's ability to pay. Proportional taxation ensures that only those who can afford to pay do so, and that those who cannot—in an economy where jobs are being cut, personal debts are high, and Employment Insurance is becoming less accessible—are not being further punished.

Rising tuition fees are not an inevitable fact of life, despite what many in government and corporate media would have us believe. Proportional taxation of income, corporate taxation, and a prioritization of government spending that supports investment in the future are actions that are not only possible, but have been implemented in countries such as those in Scandinavia in order to provide free post-secondary education. These countries, coincidentally, are consistently rated as having the world's highest living standards.

Students should not be denied an education simply because they cannot afford it. If the morality of the issue is not enough, the argument for reduced tuition fees can still be made in terms of economics. Education means having a more skilled, informed, and critical society which is necessary for a healthy democracy. Investing in students means investing in future parents who will raise the next generation. Investing in students means investing in the next innovative leaders of change to address problems of climate change, disease, poverty, and inequality. How can this be done well when graduates are struggling to pay off debt or when those who want to go to school choose not to due to fear of debt?

While attention lately has been focused on the inspiring student leaders and the sheer number of protestors in Quebec, the need for accessible education and an end to the commodification of education extends beyond Quebec. Global neoliberalism has exported the commodification of education to various parts of the world. Frustrations with this inadequate system are being expressed globally. In late 2011, thousands of student protestors in Chile publicly demonstrated in favour of more affordable secondary and post-secondary education as a key part of a more equal and just society. In late 2010, huge protests also erupted in response to the British government's plan to raise tuition fees and cut funding to post-secondary institutions. There have also recently been numerous demonstrations across the world in solidarity with Quebec students.

The United States post-secondary education system is the prime example of how commoditized education leads to increased inequality. Many students do not consider attending university or college for fear of insurmountable debt, which on average is between $50,000 and $100,000, making them likely to face more challenges in raising their socio-economic status. This debt is sometimes higher, especially when the school is part of the prestigious Ivy League. The fact that the more renowned universities also tend to be the most expensive means that only those who can afford to pay will have the opportunity to reap the benefits that a prestigious degree makes possible. Many graduates spend years and years trying to pay off their loans, while at the same time trying to start their careers and families. With nearly one trillion dollars in total student debt, the United States is experiencing another rapidly growing debt bubble. It is only a matter of time before it bursts, and when it does, the damaged economy will wreak havoc on many.

We have the power to decide our society's priorities. It is a cop-out to say that free education is not affordable. What we cannot afford is to deny students the education they deserve, or to only do so only as long as it is attached to a massive debt.

It is true that following the provincial government's intended tuition hikes, Quebec students will still pay thousands less a year than other Canadian students. But if Quebec students have fought for decades to keep their education so accessible, it is certainly not because they lack a sense of perspective; instead, it is because they look ahead to the future.

The Green Economy and Corporate Concerns in Rio+20

Tamkinat Mirza — 2012-03-30T19:45:00Z

Rio+20, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development to be held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil on 20-22 June this year, will mark the 20th anniversary of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, also know as the Earth Summit (UNCED).

The 2012 conference has three objectives: to secure renewed political commitment to sustainable development; to assess the progress and implementation gaps in meeting already agreed commitments, and to address new and emerging challenges facing the environment.

The conference this year will focus on issues such as the move toward a sustainable economy in the context of poverty eradication and governance reform.

The UNCSD Secretariat, along with its partners, has published issue briefs for each of the twelve issues under debate. The themes are trade and green economy; options for strengthening IFSD; issues related to an intergovernmental body on SD; Oceans; Sustainable cities; current ideas on sustainable development goals and indicators; green jobs and social inclusion; reducing disaster risk and building resilience; food security and sustainable agriculture; regional, national and local level governance for sustainable development; water, and science and technology for sustainable development.

During the preparatory process leading up to Rio+20, there has been extensive debate regarding the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP)'s “Green Economy” agenda.

Monetizing Nature: The UNEP's “Green Economy”

Promoting the idea of a “green economy” as a necessary precursor to sustainable development, the UNEP's Green Economy Report (GER) was published in February 2011.

The GER postulates that the environment could be preserved alongside faster and more efficient economic growth, if funds from environmentally damaging governmental subsidies (fossil fuels, fisheries, etc) were to be reallocated toward investment in new technologies.

The GER advocates “investing two per cent of global GDP in greening ten central sectors of the economy in order to shift development and unleash public and private capital flows in a low-carbon, resource-efficient path.”

The report states that this reallocation—achieved through measures that include policy reforms such as taxation—will result in normal economic activity in the short run and significantly heightened activity in the long run, while reducing the risk of crises and shock endemic to the current model.

The report demonstrates that investment will enhance new sectors and technologies that will be the future's main source of economic development: renewable energy technologies, energy efficient buildings and equipment, low-carbon public transport systems, infrastructure for fuel efficient buildings and equipment, clean energy vehicles, and water management and recycling facilities.

The market-based approach propagated by the GER involves measuring and quantifying the value of natural resources, to assign monetary values in an attempt to foster their protection.

The report has been criticized by NGOs for neglecting underlying causes of the ecological crisis. The NGOs argue that economic growth, technology and market-based approaches cannot be the only solutions pursued. Monetizing natural resources would mean their consequent privatization, which would eradicate state and community rights to protect the resource commons.

“We need to move from protecting the environment from business to using the business to protect the environment,” ehe report's chief spokesperson, Pavan Sukhdev, said at Green Week in Brussels this May. Sukhdev is a banker by profession, and played a major role in drafting the report.

The Corporate Role

The UN has faced criticism for its increasingly close ties with big business, ties that many speculate motivate the UN's advocacy for a market-based approach toward natural resources.

Corporations are indeed closely linked to the main objectives of Rio+20, as global sustainability is rooted in responsible and environmentally ethical business practices. Rio+20 will set the sustainability agenda for the next decade, delineating objectives to achieve corporate sustainability. For example by requiring businesses to prove their ability to address and provide practical solutions to global challenges, while highlighting the business case for supply chain transparency.

The UN Global Compact was set up by Kofi Annan and Nestle's ex-CEO Helmut Maucher in 2000, to promote voluntary improvements by businesses. It has 7000 member companies that have signed up to ten general principles.

For many NGOs, by promoting voluntary engagement, the compact implies decreased state intervention.

This claim is backed in the days leading up to Rio+20, as the Global Compact and the Rio+20 have organized the Corporate Sustainability Forum, scheduled for 15-18 June, in an attempt to strengthen business contribution to global sustainable development. The Forum is an effort to build consensus on more sustainable practices, to advance and diffuse sustainable innovation and to stimulate collaboration among players within the market. It is expected to have over 2000 participants representing business; investors, governments, local authorities, civil society, and UN entities.

The collaboration between UN and business holds much potential. While the move toward a green economy reliant on private interests is a long way off from now, increased business participation in global sustainability debates does show corporate commitment toward universal systemic change. The Corporate Sustainability Forum demands active demonstration of corporate promises, meaning that its recommendations may potentially become standardized within business structures.

Here, the green economy is seen to be a model that relies on “business to protect the environment.” It remains to be seen if this is a wise decision.

Keeping Hope Afloat: Freedom Flotilla II

Melissa Wils-Owens — 2011-07-01T16:48:43Z

Last month, an international fleet of ships embarked for Gaza as the sequel to the 2010 Freedom Flotilla which triggered the relaxation of Israel's blockade on the Gaza Strip. This territory is on the brink of being intentionally reduced to deprivation, starvation and rubble. Caught between Israel's efforts to protect itself, and Hamas' military resistance to Israel, civilians in Gaza are beset with a spectrum of unlawful restrictions on indispensable materials.

Hamas, a political party founded to liberate Palestine from Israeli occupation, won the Palestinian parliamentary elections in Gaza in January 2006. After Hamas refused to return a kidnapped Israeli soldier, Galid Shalit, Israel and Egypt instated an air, land and sea blockade of the Gaza Strip in hopes of exhausting Hamas' resources. The blockade prohibited Palestinian travel to and from Gaza, as well as the import of food, housing supplies, medical equipment, antibiotics, electronics, and even fishing rods. In an effort to weaken Hamas, Israel launched a three-week military campaign to level Gazan infrastructure, bombing factories, hospitals, schools, neighborhoods...and a few Hamas hubs. Thus, while the Israeli government is only in contention with Hamas, it has proven itself willing to deprive Palestinian civilians of medicine, food, and housing; of their basic livelihoods. Such “collective punishment” is illegal under international humanitarian law.

On May 31, 2010, a Gaza flotilla composed of six ships attempted to break through the blockade and supply Gaza with aid. As Israel should not have jurisdiction over Gaza's water, boat entry was selected as the most peaceful mode of entry. The fleet was seized and obstructed by Israeli naval forces, however the flotilla induced a slew of nations to demand that Israel and Egypt ease or lift the blockade. The next day Egypt partially opened the Rafah border crossing, and on June 17 Israel's Prime Minister announced that Israel's security cabinet agreed to relax the blockade and permit the flow of strictly civilian goods over the border. Still, the gamut of goods necessary to strengthen the economy in Gaza are beyond reach, and housing supplies remain limited due to Israel's fear that Hamas will sequester potential military supplies. With the echoes of progress reverberating throughout communities concerned for Gazan human rights, a second flotilla, Freedom Flotilla II, set sail last month.

Canada's boat, Tahrir, will join boats from Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Australia and the United States in hopes of providing humanitarian aid to Gaza, and provoking further pressure on Israel to lift the blockade completely. The group Canadian Boat to Gaza (CBG) is an initiative of Canadian civil society committed to direct peaceful action towards ending the imprisonment of 1.6 million Palestinians. Yet Canada remains a steadfast supporter of Israel. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada website advises against attempting to break the naval blockade and warns that Canadian consular officials will not provide consular aid to Canadians who participate in the flotilla. For Canadians, participation in the flotilla is as much a statement to the Harper administration as it is to the Israeli government; there is a disjunction in both nations between civilian needs and administrative priorities.

In a film shot by the CBG, Dr. Mona Al Farra explains that the flotilla will remind the whole world of the daily inhuman practices occurring in the Gaza Strip. Farra, a physician and human rights activist, expressed that ninety-five percent of citizens suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, phobias, and mental illnesses, which Gaza does not have the resources to remedy. Rather than destroy Israel, most Gazans want only to lead normal lives, go to school, maintain jobs, and build a home. While the humanitarian aid will be readily welcomed, Farra believes that the international solidarity symbolized by the flotilla will resonate profoundly throughout this tumultuous territory, reminding Gazans that they are not alone in their struggle for freedom.

Yours in Solidarity,

Melissa Wils-Owens

About the AIJ: The Alternatives International Journal (AIJ) is published by Alternatives, a member of the Alternatives International federation. The articles represent the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of Alternatives International.

Editors-in-Chief: Melissa Wils-Owens, Isabelle Reford.
Editorial Board: Feroz Mehdi, Michael Ryan Wiseman, Darren Shore.
Associate Editors: Marion Bauer, Erin Hudson, Talia Joundi, Kartiga Thiyagarajah.

Feedback: The AIJ welcomes comments, questions, suggestions, and criticisms. Email aij@alterinter.org.

Contributing: The AIJ is a volunteer-based not-for-profit publication, which remains open to new contributors and participants. To submit an article or photos for publication, participate on the editorial team, or otherwise get involved, email aij@alterinter.org.