In my 6 weeks in Washington D.C., I interned at WorldWatch Institute’s Nourishing the Planet Portfolio. This is an environmental research institute, that focuses on food security and agricultural research. During my internship, I researched many technological and agricultural innovations looking to address food security and malnutrition, of which the Plantagon Vertical Farm is by far my favourite:

By 2050, Earth’s population will grow to 9 billion, according to the United Nations. This population growth, coupled with a rabid global urbanization rate, is increasing the pressure on urban areas’ infrastructure and services. Cities will need to find ways to adapt to absorb their new populations, who may become vulnerable to poverty and food and water shortages. One movement that looks to address urban poverty and food insecurity is vertical urban farming, and the Plantagon greenhouse in Sweden is one of the latest examples of this innovation.

Plantagon officially broke ground on their vertical greenhouse in Linköping in 2012. The Plantagon Greenhouse Project aims to develop a sustainable vertical farm that can function by using excess heat and waste from the nearby industries for energy and fertilizer. For this, Plantagon has three different vertical farm models: the integrated greenhouse, the parasite, and the stand-alone greenhouse.

The integrated greenhouse is not just a greenhouse. In this model, there will be a façade system of panels on the exterior of the building that will host the cultivation boxes for the crops. The building itself will be used for other industrial purposes as well as urban farming, maximizing land productivity. The façade system will have a conveyor belt that moves each plant in and out of sunlight as the cultivation boxes are carried downward floor by floor.

These boxes or pots will be fitted with an ebb-and-flow irrigation mechanism as well as nutrient reservoirs. The crops will grow as they slowly move down the conveyor belt, arriving mature and ready for harvesting in the basement levels. Harvesting will be done using an automatic harvesting machine, after which the pots will be reused for a new generation of crops. The parasite model was created as a façade or exterior system that could be attached to existing buildings.

The stand-alone greenhouse model will be constructed purely for the purpose of urban agriculture. One design for this model consists of a glass sphere with a helix-shaped transport ramp at its core. As with the integrated system, thousands of planting boxes will be slowly rotating downward toward a harvesting machine. The spherical nature of the greenhouse was designed to maximize the access to light for optimal crop growth, even in winter seasons.

Critics of the design say the unusual shape will increase construction cost, but Plantagon has justified the design by estimating that the Plantagon stand-alone greenhouse will yield three times the amount of crops a traditional vertical urban farm of the same size could.

Smaller versions of the greenhouse will commit to over-the-counter sales, while the larger greenhouses will have lower per-product costs and will most likely trade with grocery stores and restaurants. Plantagon believes these farms will be sustainable on their profit alone. In a growing world with limited space, efficient, easy-to-use and inexpensive innovations in urban agriculture—like the greenhouses designed by Plantagon—can be an important way to address food security and poverty in urban settings.

 

 

A team can merely be a group of people working towards a goal. Members of this team need not even be motivated by the goal. Their motivation can be individualistic incentive or dutifulness. Every individual can merely do her/his job, dispassionate about a goal that might not even be common to all.

 

Or a team could be the SAWIP Team of 2012;  A team I have been honoured enough to be a part of.

 

The SAWIP team of 2012 was and is more than just a team. We were a group of people united by a common vision. Our thought processes, opinions, backgrounds, motivations and actions were not common to all. Yet the underlying love and dedication we hold for the development and potential of our country and people united our diversity and encouraged us to collectively work, plan and dream.

 

Our diversity also encouraged some robust dialogue. The multi-disciplinary nature of the team, as well as the range of personalities, allowed us to use every opportunity for peer-education. We were forced to consider every argument from a range of angles and interpretations, leading to a holistic understanding and problem resolution approach.

 

We did clash, but constructively. We challenged each other’s opinions not to be contrary, but to gain an understanding of what factors guided someone’s choice or mindset. And the spirit of camaraderie and respect always prevailed, keeping the peace between 15 powerful personalities.

 

And yet, this could all just describe the merger of some of the finest leaders of our generation. But the SAWIP team of 2012 transcended being merely a functional unit.

 

We became friends. To satisfy the nerd in me: a fellowship.

 

The team treated each other with respect, acceptance and care. We had the nurturing mothers and protective older brothers. In such a stressful, fast paced environment we managed to support one another, giving pep talks and allowing venting sessions. Friendship and laughter reined in our free times spent together, with discussion ranging from visionary to trivial.

 

I have grown to respect and love every member of my team.  They have given this weird 20-year old geek a lifetime of wisdom, experience, laughter, critical thinking and acceptance. More than ever, I know my voice and I know my vision, thanks to my team.

 

And on a sentimental note: for us to hold on to all we learnt from SAWIP, we must hold on to one another. Professionally, I would be as blessed as to one day work with this team and network again, for the development of our country. And on a personal note, I would be as blessed as to remain friends with my team for the rest of my days. They have played a major role in my professional and personal development and for that, I will always respect and love you guys.

 

And attend your weddings.

 

When your mother is a journalist and your sister and best friend are media studies students, a healthy appreciation for freedom of speech is socialized into your DNA. As a South African, the bombardment of the protection of information bill, the media tribunal and the Spear saga keeps this debate and appreciation alive and hale.

But the recent violent riots and protest spurred by the amateur anti-Islam film "Innocence of Muslims" makes me question the absoluteness of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech protects the right to advocate your beliefs, no matter their ethical interpretation, if they do not violate the rights of others. Under this right, people are allowed to advocate certain immoral beliefs freely, if they do not slander or do harm to others.

The film Innocence of Muslims depicts the life of the prophet Muhammad, portraying him as a child abuser and womanizer. The 14-minute length “film” is filled with such Islamophobic propaganda, mocking the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud.

This film is clearly more than just offensive and immoral – it is irresponsibly hateful. But when does freedom of speech transcend into the incitement of violence?

For this classification to be legally valid, the material must encourage the partaker to commit a violent act towards another party. If Charles Manson writes a manifesto, encouraging his followers to take up arms and start an apocalyptic race war, that is incitement to violence. Unfortunately, it does not restrict the use of hateful provocation by parties that leads to retaliation.

Upholders of this argument state that parties cannot be held responsible for the irrational reaction of others, and that any material could elicit a retaliatory response. Individuals could decide to take offence at Richard Dawkin’s denouncement of creationism. If they violently attack him, was he inciting violence by merely speaking against their opinions? Is this a misapplication of “incitement of violence”, or does the provocation justify retribution?

No, it does not.

But neither is it responsible or fair to provoke an already volatile environment. It is reckless to wield your right to freedom of speech by slandering a sensitive issue, which is known to incite a passionate or divisive response. Hate speech is not a constructive form of social criticism, especially where religion is concerned.

I am an advocate of freedom of speech and expression. I will, however, never condone the abuse of this right in sensitive environments which can lead to violence. Volatile issues should be treated with the necessary sensitivity, respect and diplomacy.

American schools, embassies and citizens have globally been under attack since the film went viral. Four American were killed in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. The free speech of a select few Americans has incited the violence of protesters, across Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

Most of the countries with the severest riots are countries that have far more suppressive environment than the United States, with more restrictions on freedom of speech and expression. The difficulty is to emphasize that this act of hate was by individuals, and does not represent the view of the United States’ government or populace at large. Most of thee countries do not have a culture of free speech, so acknowledging the right of people to speak in hateful opposition to their beliefs is incomprehensible.

We have seen this level of outrage before, in the response to Salman Rushdie’s work, as well as the publishing of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in Denmark and the burning of the Quran. When we know the potential or precedent for violence our actions provoke, I believe it is our responsibility to weigh the consequences against our need to express ourselves freely.

If it had been a factual film, documenting the civil war in Syria, it is another matter. But this film was a personal attack by a group of individuals. The filmmakers were not critically analysing the Prophet Muhammad’s legacy. They did not intend to explore any relevant theme, or deliver social criticism. The nature and motivation of the film does not warrant protection as freedom of speech. It is hateful, irresponsible and should be condemned as such by all, along with the violence of the retaliation.

If we are to advocate harmony and peace, we need to condemn both the act and the response.

I have always prided myself on being a flexible person mentally. As an inquiring and analytical mind, I have always sought justification for behaviours and opinions. As a scientist, I sought cause for reaction. I believed this made me tolerant (and I still do) of other’s perceptions and angles of thought.

 

I am a great devotee of the Sherlock Holmes school of thought: observation and deduction. Though I am very much an extrovert at first sight, I love to sit central or at the fringes of a conversation and map out personalities and mindsets. I observe and then I put on my deerstalker thinking cap and deduce the motivations behind what was said or implied.

 

Two years ago I made a very conscious decision to “broaden my horizons”, as the clichéd adage encourages. I chose to veer of the road more travelled. I chose to find the strangest and most foreign conversations and platforms I could to assimilate from. I went on a quest to understand, not only myself but people.

 

An abstract and ambitious journey, one would think.

 

I do believe I’m very much the product of nurture, not nature (I do however subscribe to the wonderful world of epigenetics). I was raised in a wonderful, loving home where I was encouraged and supported to better myself through education and experience. As I entered high school, I realised that the people surrounding me were not representative of our country alone. I felt like I needed new influences in my life; I wanted to learn more about mindsets and cultures and individuals.

 

My education at the University of the Western Cape did a lot to make me fall in love with my quest for expanding my reference base. I met new people; people whom I normally would not have crossed paths with. I got to work with them, learn from them, laugh with them and appreciate how what they taught me unknowingly shaped my views.

 

I applied to SAWIP because I fell in love with my fellow South Africans. I wanted to be equipped to empower my community and the society. It was in this incredible time in my life that I met my colleagues and friends, the SAWIP team of 2012, and was privileged enough to journey through four months of the SAWIP experience by their sides.

 

I quickly learnt I was not as flexible as I thought. I would sit at a table, while fourteen different people reached fourteen different conclusions on a matter with fourteen different trains of thought. I reached my own, following my own process of thought. I could argue from a moral point of view, but legal and economical implications never jumped into my mind. Also, I would not always consider every culture or individual’s objection to the matter based on beliefs, purely because I did not know.

 

One of the team members gave me one the greatest compliments I have ever received after our three months together: he told me he could no longer push my buttons, though I still have one or two left.

 

Because in the three months of the SAWIP journey, I have been exposed and educated on so many subjects and methods of thought that I no longer believe my views are supreme. I no longer stubbornly defend my beliefs, without considering the opposition’s motivation. I am a feminist and believe every woman should be the equal of a man, but I now understand the cultural implications of trying to impose this view on others. I still stand by my beliefs, if I find them truthful; I just understand the opposition and can make allowances in my actions for this difference of motivation or mindset. And this openness of mind has also led me to challenge every belief I had, and change a great deal of them.

 

SAWIP has been mental yoga to me. I have stretched my mind to consider all implications in an argument: legal, economical, moral, historical, social and political. Having a team of bright minds in each sector to peer-educate me and to guide our problem solving minds has truly allowed me to become flexible mentally. The rich diversity of the team and their friendship and support has also guided me to understand that tolerance should not be the objective, but acceptance; Acceptance based on an informed understanding of what justifies behaviour and opinions.

 

I hope to continue the legacy of my SAWIP journey, by always valuing curiosity to overcome ignorance, exposure to diversity to shape opinions and acceptance, encompassing tolerance, to guide my choices and behaviour. If I honour this, I may one day truly have no more buttons to push.

 

“Homosexuality is a western disease”: We have often heard the argument, posed by some hostile and ignorant leader who tries to blame the West’s “unnatural” sexual practices for their AIDS or STI statistics.

Robert Mugabe branded homosexuals un-African. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said homosexuality did not exist in his country. Indian Minister of Health Ghulam Nabi Azad claimed that homosexuality was a disease spread to India by foreigners.

The cruel irony, pointed out to me by one of our esteemed speakers during our human rights curriculum week, is that homosexuality is not the introduced culprit. Homophobia is the true western disease.

The law that criminalized homosexuality in India, known as Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, was legislated during the British rule of India. In other words: homosexuality was not imported; the hatred was.

Advocates for the unconstitutionality of section 377 say that the Indian society, pre-British rule, was more accepting of homosexuality than their conservative Victorian colonisers. They argue that Section 377 was purely a moral imposition of the British and that it was contrary to Indian tradition and principle of inclusiveness. Section 377 was created to set behavioural standard for the colonies that they might “reform” morally.

The Delhi High Court had decriminalised consenting homosexual sex in 2009; a decision upheld in the Supreme Court this year. Surely this is a progressive triumph for LGBT rights; yet Human Rights Watch notes that more than 50 percent of the remaining homosexuality criminalization laws globally were modelled on the Indian penal law. And these laws of hatred have been entrenched into society.

Because even though the disease of homophobia might be foreign, the indoctrination with time into society has been complete. Many civil and religious organisations had opposed the decriminalization act in India on the ground that homosexuality was immoral and unnatural. To be gay is still taboo in India. Even though homosexuals can no longer be prosecuted for their sexual behaviour, they are ostracised from society. NGO’s advocating for LGBT rights in India say that there have been cases where individuals have been denied medical treatment based on their sexual orientation, as of 2012. There have been tales of suicide and disinheritance; of violence and hate speech.

The shift from the sin stigma is yet to be realized, in a society not generally open to dialogue regarding any form of sexuality. But the acknowledgement of the courts that Indian culture is an inclusive and tolerant culture that will not bear the moral imposition of “western diseases” is a progressive step in the right direction.

 

 

When I tell people I study biotechnology, I get a range of reactions. Some praise its scientific innovation; some sprinkle me with verbal holy water for being a cloner or a GM condoner. A relative even asked me if biotechnology was a type of washing machine. But here is the answer I normally spin: biotechnology is the future.

Is this true? Do the advantages of biotechnology's progresses out weigh the negatives? Lets consider this briefly (and narrowly) in agricultural biotech:

Recent studies released by the United Nations have claimed that the world population will have reached and exceeded 9 billion by 2050. This large projected growth implies that great measures will have to be taken to supply this additional populace with food, shelter and medicine.

Biotechnology can be defined as the science of using and manipulating living organisms in industrial processes. The National Centre for Food and Agricultural Policy in Washington DC has assembled a report based on nine case studies that conclude that agricultural biotechnology can lead to a supplementary yield of 8.5 billion kilograms of crops in Europe alone, this extrapolated in the year 2003.  Advances likes these towards mass food production are why biotechnology is important for progress in our modern era.

One of the many biotechnological projects working towards addressing modern predicaments is the golden rice project, working towards eradicating malnutrition. This project has genetically engineered ordinary rice plants to produce β-carotene in their endosperm.  Each grain of rice then contains provitamin A, a nutrient that, when lacking, causes blindness and immunodeficiency. Rice is a staple food group, eaten by the marginalised in great numbers on a daily bases. Now with every 100-200g of golden rice, they receive their daily requirement of vitamin A. The scientists behind the project calculate that 3 000 000 children can be saved every year by just ingesting a sufficient amount of vitamin A.

Another study showing the necessity of biotechnology for modern progress is the case of Bt field corn and its modified pest-resistant nature. Bt Corn is a genetically modified crop that has had genes from a soil bacterium incorporated into its genome, producing a cry protein that is especially effective in warding off lepidopteron insect attacks. With reduced losses due to insect attack, Bt corn had a supplementary yield of 66 million bushels in 1999. Thus biotechnological processes have increased food production and decreased the amount of pesticides needed as the plant produces its own pesticide in the form of the cry protein. The compiled studies of NCFAP have shown that 14.4 million fewer kilograms pesticides will be used every year thanks to these inherent pesticides. Fewer pesticides reduce the level of dangerous toxins assimilated by consumption, which has great health benefits. If fewer pesticides are needed, production costs of farming will decrease: herbicide for rice can cost up to R2500 per hectare. Biotechnology has yielded rice plants that require only 10 kilograms of herbicide per hectare, decreasing costs by 50%.

Yet there are many people who do not view biotechnology as the solution to our modern problems. Many regulatory agencies have expressed concern and criticism about the protein allergens in GM food. Dr Arpad Pusztai created great controversy after he stated that GE foods cannot be accurately pronounced safe as regulations do not require long term studies . Pusztai conducted a study of GM potatoes at the Rowett institute, investigating whether potatoes modified to produce plant proteins named lectins had an effect on the immune systems of rats. The study concluded that consumption of the GM potatoes led to the suppression of the immune system in rats and that their growth was stunted after a period of time equivalent to 10 human years. There is no post-trial surveillance for allergic reactions to GM food in the USA, as of 2011. The European Food Safety Authority’s guidelines for GM food allergens do not require further research if the novel protein does not structurally match any known allergen. Together with the lack of post-trial surveillance, the lax research requirements imply that GM food can be introducing new allergens to people without scientists or consumers being aware of it because there is no follow up research. Scientists also do not have to proceed with testing a protein if it is not a known allergen. This can lead to slow acting agents in the long term.

An astounding 96% of world investment into agricultural biotechnology in 2001 was concentrated into industrialized countries. This means that developing countries like South Africa only receive 4% of world funds to develop agribiotechnology. They do not have access to the improved methods and technologies and can thus not produce at a competitive rate due to high production costs. Dr. Alfredo Tolón-Becerra of the University of Almeria conducted a study in 2011 to see how biotechnological processes had affected the soybean farming sector on the Pampas region. The study stated that household incomes dropped 59% per hectare, in comparison to the 1990’s. It also concluded that the 12 000 rural workers lose their jobs annually. This can be explained by the intellectual property right in the biotechnology sector Private sector firms that develop GMO’s can have them patented as intellectual properties. They then have a market monopoly and can sell the rights to firms and farmers at a very high cost.  So, as seen by the Argentinean sector, small commercial farmers cannot afford these biotechnological intellectual property rights. And so developing countries reap almost no investment or benefit from agricultural biotechnology.

 

For biotechnology to be the science of the modern era, it must address the key issues faced by our growing population.  Foremost of these is the need for mass producing food for an overpopulated Earth. Biotechnology, through GM foods, allows us to produce higher yields, with no seasonal variety, with nutrient density and in abnormal conditions. For the progress made to feed 9.2 billion people, biotechnology truly is the answer for our modern era.

 

 

 

I’ve been roaming the land of the free and the home of the brave as gaper, gazer, satirist and devoted tourist of Washington D.C. for approximately three and a half weeks, without being deported, publically humiliated or killed. This amazing feat has been achieved in the face of many idiotic incidents, where things were lost and found in translation, only to be lost again. Allow me to share a few foolish observations on the Washington ecosystem.

 

Transport, traffic and the lies they tell you in primary school: The haunting songs of primary school karaoke taught me to always look left, then right when crossing the traffic light. I need to constantly remind myself that these songs were not American imports, as my fellow commuters yank me back to reality and the pavement. Or wait, is that side walk? As my near death experiences have taught me: the right side of the road to watch for traffic is appropriately the right side. My fellow commuters have also taught me (with their confused stares) that referring to a traffic light as a robot brings up strange mental images seen on the cover of bad science fiction novels.

 

Rush hour on the metro is such a literal creature. In my naïve days, I used to stretch across the escalator step like I just received its property title. Now, I cower into the corner so that the important looking men in chinos or fierce looking women in blazers can fly by me. Or, when I don my own corporate cape, I fly down those stairs myself as if the revenues of a Fortune 500 company depended on it.

 

A fine kettle of fish: My lovely host family shocked and horrified me by revealing they did not own a kettle. They had swapped the medieval instrument for its more caffeinated cousin: the percolator. Forced to indulge in the hedonistic pleasures of the caffeinated bean, I became quite a morning person. A morning person with an extremely twitchy right eye. And when I discovered that Starbucks was literally around every corner, how could I not succumb to the aromatic allure of unnecessarily complicated coffee drinks, when the practice of drinking tea is apparently frowned upon?

 

Only at my office did I discover a kettle which, of course, led to compulsive tea drinking while at work. This, together with my “exotic” accent, led many of my fellow interns to the assumption that I must be British. My vast knowledge of cricket, the royals and Jane Austen does not help the matter.

 

Environmentally friendly ugliness: If you offered me a Prius two months ago, I (the amateur environmentalist) would have told you that the Prius is the ugliest car since the unsmart Smart car and that I would rather skateboard around town than pay a bucket load of money for it. However, the Prius has infected D.C. and each day I see a fleet of the green machine crawling across the roads; leaving behind a minimal carbon footprint, of course. These people are truly making a sacrifice for the future of their children, having to see that car parked in your driveway every day. Alas, I have now become so naturalized to D.C. that the Prius no longer offends my eyes; I can look at it for six consecutive seconds.

 

The curious incident of the laptop at day time: My host family lives in a beautiful neighbourhood, where I can stroll around at 01:00 a.m. at night and come home with all of my valuables. This suburban tranquillity has dulled my street edge (note the irony) to the extent that I abandoned my laptop out in the open of the garden to go procure some coffee. As I was waiting for the percolator to percolate, my South African spidey senses tingled. I hurled myself into the garden, only to find my laptop basking in the sunlight. I remind myself daily that these American tendencies will have to be left at customs...

 

We speak no Americano: Americans have a vast, vast catalogue of condiments. Tomato sauce is not on said list however, and when they  receive an order for tomato sauce they panic and pour you a tall glass of tomato juice. Which I drank, right after asking for some “ketchup”. I was also dumbstruck to find that a scone is called a biscuit and a biscuit a cookie. Needless to say, that the confusion surrounding the naming of burgers almost overwhelmed me. In America, home of hamBURGERS and BURGER King, what South Africans perceive to be a hamburger is in fact a sandwich. Needless to say, my vocabulary has received many a raised brow.

 

These are not even the full spectrum of my foolish observations. I have gained a life time’s skills and knowledge in D.C., not just how not to die on the metro. For more serious reflections, see my other blogs. For less serious reflections, watch this space.

 

 

Warning: the following blog may contain traces of morality, caution is advised.

Under the facilitation of some of our members, the SAWIP team recently entered a dialogue on human rights and immigration. In preparation, our facilitators recommended we read up on the theories of Hannah Arendt.

For those who don’t know (I numbered amongst the uninformed merely a week ago): Hannah Arendt was a political philosopher, inspired by her German-Jewish heritage and flight from the Nazi regime in 1933 to write about political justice, civic engagement and representative democracy, amongst other titanic subjects.

Statelessness is also one of the main focuses of her work; understandable given her background, having spent eighteen years as a stateless refugee. The Nazi regime used the sovereignty of state to deny collective citizen and human rights to entire ethnic groups. It is no wonder Ms. Arendt wrote that statelessness denies one the “right to have rights”. Without a state to implement one’s rights, who shall do so? When no country legally claims you, who should provide for you? Protect you?

But the question that truly resonated with me was not primarily one of the above, as vital as they are. The question that snuck hauntingly into the back of my mind, guided by our reading, was: by what right are you a citizen of a specific country?

I anticipate the legal minds and ask them not to bludgeon me with jargon and precedent. This argument is not one restricted to black and white or literal thinking. I restate: this is a moral interpretation of the argument.

By what right am I a South Africa citizen?

To satisfy the lawyers’ need for precedent: 98 percent of citizens worldwide acquired citizenship in the country of one or both of their parents birth, or acquiring it in the country of their own birth.

Morally, this arrangement is flawed. Citizenship to a specific country moulds the circumstances in which you develop and live. The social capital, health benefits and legal protection the state affords you shapes the standard of your living.

A child born in Afghanistan has an average life expectancy of 44.6 years. If that child had been born in Japan, he or she would on average live to 83.2 years. What if that child had been born in Canada, where more than 50% of the population has a tertiary degree, according to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)? Would that child not have an enormous advantage over children in developing countries, where tertiary degrees are scarce and a luxury?

Why should the second-case child be doomed to grow up in an underdeveloped social infrastructure, just because his/her mother gave birth at certain GPS co-ordinates?

Even worse: a child born to a country in conflict. Should the child be nursed in a world of chaos, or allowed to develop in a country with stability and resources even though he was not born there?

Naturalization processes around the world takes many years, attempts and administration costs. States around the world have been given the right to refuse entry and legal protection to individuals that are not citizens. States have been given the power or right to withhold rights, in the form of citizenship. I understand the need for these regulations, supported by arguments regarding national security and organizational provision of resources. But is it moral?

There is a school of thought that advocates for citizenship to be made available to all who choose to live in a country. The implications of this liberal argument are, however, the establishment of a global state where citizens can move in and out of countries as they so please. The advocates argue that certain residency requirements will regulate the sovereignty of regional states, but the practical implications of this argument is just too unrealistically concrete for me to be supportive of the concept. Morally, of course, it appears correct.

Others argue that citizenship should be awarded to all who are subject to the laws of that state. If these individuals have to live by the laws, they need to be represented in the political processes of the state that shape said laws and policies. Or that citizens should be those who economically or socially contribute to the society of the state. If you play a role in developing the state, they argue, you must be granted the protection of said state.

Which school of thought do I support?

Firstly, I believe statelessness denies you a collective identity. It makes you vulnerable, to poverty and violence, as you are under no state’s legal protection or provision.  It condemns you, in some cases, to the life of a refugee, where your opinion or actions have no credible effect or agency. Arendt actually says: that within a “completely organized humanity” the “loss of home and political status becomes identical with expulsion from humanity altogether.”

I agree to a great extent with Hannah Arendt when she says that “the only human right is the right to citizenship.” This right, after all, affords you many other rights. Do I then believe that power to restrict citizenship and the rights associated with it should be left to the sovereignty of states? With 32.9 million displaced people globally in 2006 alone, I do question the structure of citizenship application and implementation. The obvious solution would be for all of these stateless people to be granted nationality in the various states they currently live in, or could be provided for.

But unfortunately, this argument is not merely a moral one. It is a racial, regional, economical, political argument. States not willing to legally absorb these refugees to establish them in communities conducive to growth are instead moving towards a so-called containment strategy. This involves the use of mass repatriation and internment camps, including emergency and holding stations. These states may legally exclude these individuals from their territory for whatever reason.

By what right are you, and not the stateless, citizens of a country?

Going by the place of birth of your parents or yourself seems feudal and primitive. Giving everyone license to roam free seems like a recipe for resource misdistribution. The one thing I do believe is that the processes of naturalization should be simplified, as to make transition easier for citizens. In the era of globalization, this only seems logical. Also: if an individual needs to be an economic agent contributing towards the state to be a citizen, what becomes of the marginalized who cannot do so? I believe that the individuals subject to the laws of a state give the state legitimacy. This seems a fair basis for citizenship, to my amateur mind.

The other thing I know is that sovereignty of state is failing us in addressing the problem of statelessness. Did Hannah Arendt have a solution for the problem?

No. Nor do I. Yet.

 

 

Ask any frustrated mother: the youth loves to question everything. We still have the vigour and arrogance not to accept reactions or circumstances at face value. We love to challenge outcomes and roadmap responsibility for these conclusions.

It is no different for the youth leaders of South Africa. When the team of fifteen students from the South Africa Washington International Program met with a representative of the UN for a briefing, we heard that our country “bowed to no one”. We heard tales of implied International power, of a symbolic significance that gave South Africa a special influence among nations.

Yet the supposed disregard of the African Union and South Africa’s efforts in Libya by the UN was burning at the back of several of our students’ minds. It is with this ambiguity of opinions that we met with three delegates of South Africa’s Permanent Mission to the UN.

Our panel consisted of Dr. Jongi Klaas, first secretary and representative on terrorism issues for the Security Council; Mr. Tshimangadzo Jeremiah Murongwana, first secretary and a member of the Third Committee, specialising in children and armed conflicts and Dr. Dire David Tladi, legal adviser to the Mission and member of the Sixth Committee.

For a youth starved for answers, this panel represented some of the best resources and leaders the country had to offer us. To the credit of the panel, they opened by telling us they would answer all our questions to the extent of what is in their power. Throughout the conversation the panel allowed us liberties in our robust and sometimes critical conversation, never once patronizing us based on our youth.

Dr. Tladi opened the session with a description of the finer structural machinery of the UN. The discussion on the veto power structure in the Security Council naturally led to questions regarding Security Council reform and the division of world powers regarding the issue. The validity of an African claim for a permanent seat was debated, focussing on the disproportionate and non-permanent representation of a continent that houses an alleged 70 percent of all conflicts put before the Security Council. Dr. Tladi also spoke on the differentiation between the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal court, followed by a discussion on the seemingly selective prosecution of Africans in the ICC.

Issues regarding international conflicts were addressed to Dr. Klaas, who spoke very eloquently on the unrest in the Maghreb region, as well as the application of Palestine to become an UN member state. He also addressed a very interesting question posed by a student, inquiring if he observes South Africa’s influence growing in the international community, but dwindling in Africa. The status of LGBT rights in Africa was discussed by Mr. Murongwana, who spoke of the patterns of violence and policy reform briefly.

The session was ended by a frank discussion on the ambiguity of South Africa’s undersigning of Resolution 1973 for Libya, only to criticise the UN and western powers for interfering in a regional conflict. The students posed questions on the undermining of the AU by these actions.

This panel discussion was about more than just literal questions and answers. It was about leaders investing time in the next generation to inform our global perspectives. They acknowledged our need for a platform where we could engage with institutions like the UN to understand the structural delicacies that result in the conclusions we live with everyday, as well as  having our leaders authoritatively answer our questions and hear our voices.

The South Africa Washington International Program would like to thank our panel members, for setting such a hopeful precedent for youth engagement by our leaders.

 

 

Good evening distinguished guests. Firstly, allow me to introduce myself: I am Edyth Parker, proud member of the SAWIP 2012 team. I had my generation Y membership card stamped on the 7th of September 1992, which confirms me as a current member of the controversial and much debated “youth of South Africa”. You might know our club by our other names: the "lost generation", "the young and the restless", "an appalling waste of human potential" or "a potential source of serious social instability."

You might also know us by the defining features of our club: unemployment and apathy. According to the National Treasury 42% of my South African peers below the age of 30 years are unemployed and not in institutions of education. In a country with a legacy of transformation through youth involvement and activism, these declining statistics frighten me.

Because employment is not only a means to generate an income. My unemployed peers are not being granted a platform to contribute economically to South Africa, which is psychologically, socially and spiritually disempowering. They are granted no social standing, leaving them vulnerable and discouraged from agency. They are not being equipped as independent or innovative citizens, as employment would have moulded them to be survavilists in a market economy. The psycologically disempowered are being moulded as a burden on our government, dependent on social grants and promises from politicians. In ten years the beneficiaries of state social grants have increased from 3.5 million to 15.1 million. Our youth has lost the belief in our power, in the traditional or political sense.

Which results in our second alleged defining characteristic: apathy. We are not engaging in the democratic channels of the country, because our needs are not being prioritised. The registered youth voters fell by 22% before the 2008 elections. Non-participatory democracy leads to a whole generation not being represented in political institutions by the vote. And again, the youth’s voice is not heard.

The portrait I’ve painted of the generation Y club is a bleak one, a confusing and greyscale Goya. Allow me to switch brushes and try painting a new, brighter face for our youth.

I am an undergraduate student at the University of the Western Cape, pursuing a degree in biotechnology. I was raised in a middle class neighbourhood, where all the children ate crustless sandwiches from Spiderman lunch boxes while playing on the well-maintained gym equipment. As I matured, I yearned for more exposure, more influences to assimilate and base my ethos and vision on. So I choose to attend a University historically associated with a demographic different from my upbringing.

It is here I met Aliyah, the beautiful face of a positive and promising youth.

 

The professor of my biology seminar informed the class that several students had approached him, three weeks before the exams, to tell him they could not fund their own textbooks. These youth were disenfranchised from education by the lack of resources. Aliyah took up their plight. She approached me and a few other students, asking if we would be willing to contribute towards textbooks for our peers.

But she did not merely ask us to hand over money. She mobilised the students in need, together with some of our peers to make bracelets, which we would then sell for profit. The money collected would be used to procure textbooks for the students who assisted in making the bracelets.

You see: Our youth is not necessarily apathetic. It is true that participation in formal politics by the youth is perhaps less frequent than the mass mobilisation of the previous generation, that characterized the breaking point in the Anti-Apartheid struggle. But the youth of SA are very much involved in more informal politics, or the addressing of public socio-economic issues at a community service level. The youth of South Africa is actively committed to addressing the needs in their communities; they have just lost faith in formal politics to meet these immediate needs.  The issue that faces our youth is not apathy; it is estrangement from the political system.

But ladies and gentleman, this is not a dead end for youth development. Youth involvement in these unconventional politics of community commitment and service plays a great role in the holistic development of our youth. In their capacity as community servants, youth learn about leadership skills and social connections. Youth also acquire skills that enhance employability such as the recent voluntary construction of houses for the department of human settlements by 150 youths. Those youth are now skilled. They have a chance to procure employment and have thus won the battle against hopelessness

The informal politics of community service enhances the social capital of the youth; it fights of the frustration of feeling powerless in the face of your community’s problems by giving us tangible results. Hopefully the civic knowledge our youth will attain as community servants will also instil in them a civic responsibility that will translate to participation in formal politics as well.

I do not think Aliyah realised the genius of her scheme. At the practical level, she was addressed a socio-economic need by supplying textbooks. But she was also teaching my classmates how they could use entrepreneurship to create opportunities, all the while reminding their peers what our civic responsibilities were. She was even participating in skills transfer with these youths!

Our youth is not apathetic; we’re just unconventional, as all South Africans are. Incomprehensibly high unemployment rates have disempowered the youth economically and politically. So we have sought other means to meet the needs of their communities. I believe encouraging youth volunteer culture in South Africa allows communities to harness the vigour of the youth in solving problems; I believe it gives the youth back their voice and social status. It allows for personal growth and capacity development, enhancing the social capital of a nation of youths that was once described as “unemployable”.

I am extremely proud to be a South African youth, part of a generation that is not lost; we are just finding our feet in our own way. 

 

 

 

According to statistics by the National Treasury, 42% of South Africans under the age of 30 were unemployed in 2011. The same statistics show that employment of youth aged 18-24 years has decreased by 20% in the interval of December 2008 and 2010, due in parts to aftershocks from the global recession. The overall decline was 6.4%.

 

Youth unemployment is one of the many shackles that restrain South African growth. 42% of my peers are not employed. They have no formal means to raise an income; but not only are they losing their income, they are not granted an opportunity or a platform to contribute to our society or economy. They are not being equipped to become independent and innovative citizens. They are being moulded as a burden on our government, dependent on social grants and promises from politicians. In ten years the beneficiaries of state social grants have increased from 3.5 million to 15.1 million. AS ANC MP Prof Ben Turok said: "South Africa is becoming a charity rather than a developmental state".

 

Our youth is unemployed for various reasons. Firstly, our education system fails to equip them with basic skills. Secondly, 66% of our unemployed youth have no job experience, a vital asset for an individual seeking employment. Both these factors make employing our youth a very risky investment, when there is such a large discrepancy between start-up salaries and level of productivity.

 

Late former chairperson of the Centre for Policy Studies, Professor Lawrence Schlemmer, believed that economic and social disempowerment leaves the youth psychologically vulnerable to gangster/criminal culture as well as “the activism of slick political entrepreneurs”. This has spurred many thought leaders to consider whether the Arab Spring would extend to our frustrated youth.

 

Political and Trend Analyst JP Landman recently presented a compilation of the core environment that support’s an “Arab spring” to the BoE Private Clients. The countries where the movement gained foothold were all middle-income nations with high rates of inequality and poverty. The demographics also showed a “youth bulge” with 30-32% of the population aged between 15-29 years and citizens were allowed very restricted political and civil rights. Grading South Africa according to these categories, South Africa exhibits 4 of the 5 traits that inflame a country to the “Arab Spring” movement: our economy is classified as middle-income; we have extremely high rates of poverty and one of the highest rates of inequality worldwide; 28% of our population is aged between 15 and 29, but Landman considers this high enough to categories as an environment to promote the Arab Spring movement.

 

With 4 of the 5 conditions met, would South Africa experience a youth mobilized revolution to overturn the current government?

 

Many thought leaders would answer in the negative. Our media sector has not yet been disempowered; they are allowed to police our government and hold them publically accountable for misjudgements and misbehaviours. Whether we will retain this right is another story. The judiciary system is independent and constitutional, they argue. South Africa has an opposition party to give voice to counter-arguments and criticisms of current government. A survey done by the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation in late 2011 reports that 66% of respondents indicated that they trust the national government to deliver basic services. If that seems incredible, survey statistics of late 2011 by Ipsos Markinor reflect that 56% of our population has confidence in our government. These surveys would indicate that the majority of citizens are not as dissatisfied with our government as to rise up in mass protest to force regime change.

 

And yet the number of service delivery protest has increased from 2 in 2006 to 111 in 2010, according to the city press. And between January and May of 2012 there has been an astounding 372 service delivery protests, according to national police spokesperson Colonel Vishnu Naidoo. Political analyst Moeletsi Mbeki has even come out and proclaimed that the current government will have lost power by 2030 and that an Arab spring-like revolution would very likely be a contributing factor. He said we shared several characteristics with countries of the Arab spring movement: our populace was educated to an extent and had high expectations that were not being met economically and socially. He believes the people will grow sick of the political elite feeding only their own consumption.

 

ANC treasurer-general Matthews Phosa even spoke to warn against disgruntled youth turning on the current government. He said the Arab Spring was a lesson to other countries not to neglect their frustrated youth. The National Planning Commission estimated that the chances of an individual entering employment without experience after 24 years of age is minimal. Thus 60% of our generation will spend most of their lives without formal employment.

 

Is that a fact we can ignore? Is that a fact the government can ignore?

 

Reflecting back on youth day to our courageous previous generation, I see the same distancing between leadership and a disgruntled youth today. Not fuelled by the same issues, but neglected and almost as disempowered.  Will this lead to a South African Arab Spring? Do we need an Arab Spring to address these issues? Do we need to march on the union buildings, mass-mobilized and driven by anger? Or do we need a non-politicised platform, where the leadership of this nation enters dialogue with the youth to be held accountable and responsible for their actions and promises? Where we are empowered to seek innovative solutions; where we encounter each other and try and find solutions locally and nationally? A think-tank for entrepreneurs, to solve youth unemployment, combined with the support and investment of the government; a network of young minds who wish to claim our country and have a hand in steering it. The direction the current generation steers it in will after all determine our starting point: whether, ten years from now, we just continue building on a strong foundation or whether we have to demolish and try to salvage something amongst the ruins.