Daily Geographical News - November 30th 2012

1) The UK's development secretary said that UK will cut it's bilateral aid to Rwanda because the Rwanda government are allegedly using the money to fund rebels in the Democratic Republic of Congo. 

The rebel group M23 has been causing conflicts and violence in DRC. This decision to cut GBP21 billion of aid funds to Rwanda follows on from an earlier decision in July also to cut a GBP16 billion aid provision (though that had been revoked). 

By cutting aid to Rwanda, the UK is stating that it sides against Rwanda government's activities. Should the UK even have a say in another country's decisions? What about some negative effects of cutting aid so abruptly, e.g. a sudden reduction in money may mean some social poverty reduction schemes can't continue. How much is Rwanda dependent on the UK for aid ? 

I think this news made me think about the political nature of aid and how countries in the "Global North" can directly affect a poorer nation's welfare by cutting their aid. Aid itself is problematic because we still are't clear whether it can help a country develop or grow to follow a Western model of economic development. Aid is also political - the UK gov. claims that they will continue to help Rwanda reduce poverty by pumping in aid. Yet, most of the citizens in Rwanda live in poverty. How effective is aid and why does the UK insist on giving aid to Rwanda ? 

2) An American company has developed new technology to keep bread mould-free for up to 2 months 

The company, called Microzap, does what it's name implies because they created an oven that can kill mould bacterial in bread in just 10 seconds of exposure. They want to pioneer the oven to bakeries and bread makers in the world because it can help "alleviate food wastes", especially in the mass consumerist global north countries.

This is, to me, an example related to the issue of commodifying "green" and "sustainability". This is a private company who clearly wants to make profit by means of a "green cause" - to reduce food shortage. Through biotechnology, they claim they can solve the developed world's food crisis. I see examples of aerospace companies that want to develop "greener" aircrafts and technologies - should we allow privatisation of "greening" goals ? This goes a step further than commodifying and pricing natural resources like water, or even diamonds!

Also it could well work, because Microzap can increase the shelf life of bread, but it does not tackle the root of the problem: food wastage in society. This technology only works for bread - what about other perishable items like milk or vegetables? People have to change their attitudes and governments have to promote awareness for not wasting so much food. We should focus on that issue rather than promoting biotechnology to help us continue our wasteful lifestyles. 

Political implications of Generalisations

Modern vs Traditional

Today I was asked whether there are such things as "modern" and "traditional". Normally, I am inclined to jump into a typical answer - yes, there are such things, the distinction between two terms exist. Modernity is the way we do things now, in the current world, and traditional is the way your ancestors or parent's parent's generation conducted their actions and thoughts. So yes, there would be a clear difference between the two, and that is why people still continue to use the term.

But - that answer would only be a basic response that may hit the lower level of thinking. What this candidate failed to do is consider the deeper and more global agenda that these specialised vocabulary have. We use these terms because it is USEFUL to humans. Labels and stereotypes exist because to a certain extent, they ARE true, whether it be the appearance of the majority of the Asian population or even what is "traditional" or not.

Hence, labels and terms, classifications and categories all are STILL being used in modern days for policy making, political decisions and for important access needs such as applying for grants, determining whether a country is suitable for grants, schemes, special aid provisions and more.

Urban vs Rural 

I jump to the example of "Urban" and "Rural" , which was also a point raised in my mock interview today. Do these terms still apply today and is it right that we still use them ?

The first answer I can think of is that yes, there are clear distinctions between the two terms in what they mean. Urban areas can be categorized as areas of built up or man-made infrastructure, often but not always with a higher population density that it's rural counterparts. Urban areas are usually seen as more economically productive, more clustered and has it's own set of urban geographies. Culturally, socially, environmentally and politically, it is different from the rural areas.

Rural is usually generalized as poorer and less efficient in terms of production than the urban areas. Production may be higher for crops and products that are made directly from the earth, but in terms of revenue and money it is often significantly less. The demographics and social structures is distinct from urban areas, and some rural places may even have it's own culture and traditions.

But then - think. What about the rural/urban fringe ? Is that rural or urban ? Areas like this represent a blend of rural and urban , and this leads me to the idea these terms actually encapsulate a blend of both. Urban places, if you view it in a larger scale (eg a city like London) can have its "rural" areas, however small. Rural areas too can have patches of land where it's built up and full of bustling streets and people.

What WE, as human beings, NAME and LABEL as urban and rural are actually NOT completely urban or rural. 

We call it urban but areas are in fact hybrids. This raises the question of:

Why do we generalize areas and put labels that are not entirely accurate ? Are labels ever accurate in the first place ? 

The fundamental reason why we term areas Urban or Rural, Modern or Traditional, is that they are a necessity in human society. What I mean by that is policy makers, and political leaders, need these terms so that they can manage people, control groups of people, divide groups of people, easily and separate priorities.

It is very political - and by applying labels, it makes governing and running a society easier. For example, by labeling areas as rural, the authorities can focus on promoting a "rural access scheme" or "rural regeneration" scheme which can promote increased standards of living in the non-urban areas. Or, a negative example would be political leaders classifying a country as an LEDC (a western model as it implies a hierarchy where there's a top and bottom - one where the top is economic growth - is economics even a way to measure development  ? ) - the LEDC country can then "apply" for grants of aids from an MEDC nation. Hence geo-politics, conflicts and globalisation.

Everything, in Geography, is POLITICS in it's underlying framework. Even what we do everyday, and how we label things and define things, are political.

Thoughts

To succeed in an interview, you have to showcase yourself and your brain. The academics are looking to see how you think in an unknown or pressurised situation.

I must practise speaking my thoughts aloud and thinking everything aloud. A well-structured response goes a long way.

Mock Interview reflection

I just had a mock interview. Generally, these are the things I have to improve upon:

• Treat it as a normal tutorial, but make sure you show your best Geographical knowledge. 
• I have to make sure I develop the question and think of what CATEGORIES of considerations I need to make. 

Hurricane Sandy and President Obama's win

It is always interesting to read about President Obama's election being affected by a very Geographical event - a physical phenomenon known as a hurricane. Hurricane Sandy hit New York last week and was the focus of news articles all over the world. And yet, when I raised this issue to my boyfriend, he told me something that was quite thought- provoking:

Why is the news focused on New York, America, rather than the other countries where Hurricane Sandy hit ? Hurricane Sandy hit Cuba and left USD 2 billion in damages. It hit Jamaica, Dominican Republic (2 deaths), Bahamas, Haiti, where they still have not recovered from the earthquake in 2010, New Jersey and moved on to the USA into New York.

Damages, in New York, were obviously less than in the lesser developed nations. The LEDCs did not have capacity to cope, yet alone prepare for such a flood. They probably did not expect any hurricane at all (Edit: Wikipedia says that it did issue a storm warning after Jamaica did - but I question it's ability to reach the rural population - did they have technology? ), whereas the USA probably had research centres predicting and tracking every move of the hurricane before it touched on the shores of America. A warning that there would be a 90% chance of a storm was issued and 5000 flights were cancelled on time before the Hurricane. This saved a lot of economic losses for the developed country.

Observe the figure below:

Country	Fatalities	Missing	Damage (in USD)	Sources
United States	113	1	$50 billion (estimated)	[158][159][160]
Haiti	54	21	Unknown	[161][162]
Cuba	11	0	$2 billion (estimated)	[158][163][164]
Bahamas	2	0	$300 million (estimated)	[158][165]
Canada	2	0	Unknown	[166][167]
Dominican Republic	2	0	Unknown	[158]
Jamaica	1	0	$55.23 million (estimated)	[158][168]
Bermuda	0	0	Unknown

It's not surprising to me at all that United States had the most deaths and the most economic losses (50 billion). Why ? Because they have the largest land mass of all the other nations hit, and that inside United States, each state's losses were added up together. The other countries all incurred losses that were high - for their state.