Even though the third millennium officially begins January 1, 2001, in the midst of the 2000 celebration, and with less than a week left, Sampadhki is opening up the floor to an open discussion on the achievements and letdowns of the 20th century. Discussions can range from politics; science and medicine; sports or anything that you feel has impacted the way we live, positively or negatively.

The past 1000 years have been truly eventful, and have left us with numerous names and faces that have impacted our way of living. Whether it is artists like Leonardo de Vinci, or literary figures like William Shakespeare, or maybe even composers like Beethoven each of these names have been made their presence and mark in the historical timeframe of the 20th century.

In the sciences, the 20th century witnessed some truly life changing inventions and theories. For example, Sir Isaac Newton’s experimentation with gravitation; John Dalton and the introduction of the atomic theory, Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity. Equally, we saw inventions like aeroplanes and cars; typewriters and computers; televisions and radio; and telephones and the internet alter our ways of living.

In addition, the 20th century brought us the Black Plague in 1300s and the discovery of AIDS in the late 1900s. In warfare, we witnessed a tremendous change in weaponry from the steel crossbow in 1300s to the present rise in nuclear weapons. The century brought us the end of colonialism, but still a divide remained between the “developed” and “developing nations;” the “first” and the “third” word.

The list can go on to include architectural achievements, the exploration of man into space, whatever you choose to expand upon. You could look at figures like Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa who have brought upon mass movements and change through positive steps. Or maybe even look at the dimmer side of history to include such individuals as Adolf Hitler and his mass ethnic cleansing. The discussion can be entirely dictated by yourself, but please just make sure you back up what you say rather than just writing merely one liners.

With that said, its time to turn the floor over to you for the last time this year century . . . decade . . . year…month.

Sampadhki would like to wish you all a happy and prosperous new millennium!

For nearly half of its 52 years of its existence, Pakistan has been run by her army. Yet, this was the first time since the late 1980s that the democratic institutions in Pakistan experienced a drastic turmoil. On Tuesday, October 12, 1999, in what has been termed a “lightning” attack, Nawar Sharif was ousted from the Prime Minister position and replaced with the military that has yet to establish its next move. The current situation in Pakistan has been by the US State Department as “a setback for democracy and the constitution in Pakistan.”

The coup that has left many Pakistanis celebrating, and much of the international community anxious, was carried out, according to Gen. Pervez Musharraf, to prevent further destabilization of the nation. Needless to say, the coup, for many, did not come as a surprise. Sharif had been building up resentment within the army since he had withdrawn troops from Kargil at the intervention of the US. This step left many military personnel with a sense of betrayal from Sharif, particularly that he had sold out the nation and humiliated the Pakistani army. This sentiment was further enhanced as Sharif began removing many high officials from their posts. It was with the removal of Gen. Musharraf – the apparent mastermind behind Kargil – that ignited Tuesday’s events. The nation today, however, is still very much vague and uncertain as to what its future holds.

But Pakistan was not the only nation impacted by the coup. The US has also been thrust into the limelight with questions being asked as to its role in the international arena. Even though fully aware of the possibilities of a coup arising in Pakistan, the US was unable to prevent it. In fact, the situation brings forth many interesting questions and one is how will the US now deal with its former Cold War ally? With little leverage to press Pakistan to return to a civilian government, the world’s superpower is slowly begining to realize that the global arena has greatly changed from the once bi-polar system. Specifically, that despite existing economic and military sanctions, Pakistan was able to truly cause a great deal of uncertainty for the US. The fear of the use of nuclear weapons has drawn a lot
of international attention, and today it appears that the periphery is in fact causing the center to react. Is this merely a symbolic illustration of how in fact we have become interconnected and interdependent?

Although Pakistan may have brought attention to herself through this coup, the fact remains that she cannot survive alone. She urgently needs the aid of the international community, which at large, has begun to suggest the freezing or withdrawing of much-needed loans. These actions will, in turn, create further instability and lack of development in the country. Politically, there is still no clear vision as to how the army will address crucial issues such as aid and relations, especially since the latest move by the Gen. Musharraf has does not sit well with international community at large.

We recently received a forwarded message that we felt was worthy of sharing with you. It’s about society and culture and how our values and ideals are formed. Amazingly, this arrived at a time when we were putting together a piece on the various ills in our society, our infinite “isms.” Racism, sexism, ageism, casteism, classism . . . the list goes on. “Ism” impact our lives by providing us with stereotypes that aid in perpetuating hatred. These stereotypes result in prejudices that we hold against either individuals or groups. In fact, stereotypes tend to over shadow our logic by providing preconceived notions about people that we don’t know. These prejudices are general negative by nature, but since these are learned behaviors they can be unlearned. The vital fact is that nobody is born prejudiced! Prejudices are attitudes that we gain from our surroundings, whether it be at home, school or work, and for the most part we can not justify them with any legimate reasoning. Nevertheless, if left unchallenged these ideals can go out of control and foster into hatred and violence. The mail below seems to illustrate how such prejudices can come about:

“Start with a cage containing five apes. In the cage, hang a banana on a string and put stairs under it. Before long, an ape will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the apes with cold water. After a while, another ape makes an attempt with the same result – all the apes are sprayed with cold water. Turn off the cold water. If, later, another ape tries to climb the stairs, the other apes will try to prevent it even though no water sprays them.

Now, remove one ape from the cage and replace him with a new one. The New ape sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his horror, all of the other apes attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted. Next, remove another of the original five apes and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous Newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm. Again, replace a third original ape with a new one. The new one makes it to the stairs and is attacked as well. Two of the four apes that beat him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs, or why they are participating in the beating of the newest ape.

After replacing the fourth and fifth original apes, all the apes which have been sprayed with cold water have been replaced. Nevertheless, no ape ever again approaches the stairs. Why not? “Because that’s the way it’s always been around here.”

This analogy is very powerful in beginning to understand how truly our minds behave. We take so much for granted. Accepting customs, values and traditions without questioning or objecting to them. We truly behave in the manner similar to that displayed by the apes, merely creating a society that compiles because of what “others” do. Knowing the value of knowledge and questioning, many of us – even the most educated and rebellious – continue to fall prey to the act of stereotyping and generalizing. Even worse, because we accept these values without questioning we, in turn, pass them on from one generation to the next. This behavioral pattern aids in fueling discrimination, bigotry and hate. Nevertheless, as stated earlier these are behaviors that can be unlearned through such avenues as education and the simple act of interaction.

Culture evolves over time and customs can and are changed. We have seen through history how such customs that are intergrated into the very heart of our society have been altered. The end of slavery vividly depicts how we can change our societies for the better. Had it not been for such people as Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglas and Susan B. Anthony to name a few, slavery may have continued longer. These individuals represent those who are willing enough to question and challenge the existing norms. Often they embark upon a path loaded with thorns, but the fragrance of their hard work lingers with us for generations. We should realize that we all have the potential to change our environment, the question is what price are we willing to pay for it?

After a long wait, India recently released a draft version of its nuclear doctrine which, according to National Security Adviser Mr. Brajesh Mishra, is just a draft for public discussion and not a final document. The doctrine calls for a minimum nuclear deterrent based on a survivable triad of land, air and sea-based systems; furthermore, the nuclear trigger, according to this document, should be in the hands of the Prime Minister. This nuclear doctrine, however, has not been received very warmly in the United States. In fact, the three major pillars of the US government — the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon — have each voiced their displeasure in the draft. For example, White House spokesman David Leavy stated that “…the presence of nuclear weapons on the subcontinent raises the possibility of an arms race that is no one’s interest… We are trying to make the case that in fact security is more enhanced in the absence of nuclear weapons.”

Equally, James Rubin, US State Department spokesman, declared that “[America has] taken the position that nuclear weapons do not contribute to greater security in South Asia.” India, in its defense has responded to the U.S. criticisms by stating that “as a sovereign country, it is India’s right to decide for itself what is in its larger security interest.” Furthermore, India has used the recent uprising in the South Asia region – Kargil – as evidence that nuclear weapons can deter and prevent escalation of warfare. This situation brings forth an interesting scenario. We are faced with a current global power, whose power has been derived from military might, announcing to an upcoming contender that she should not follow by example. Is this a legitimate stance on both sides? Is India, being a role model of the developing world, stepping into the right direction by investing its resources in nuclear weaponry? Furthermore, does the US have a right to voice concern over the escalation of nuclear weapons when it has itself been the leader of the pact? Or is just simple a vivid example of “the blind leading the blind?”

The United States for decades has served as the poster child for nuclear weapons and its peace through strength slogan. Throughout the Cold War, the US stuck to its traditional realist approach to defense and national security. The fundamental premise rested on its military capability and the need for a balance of power. Hence, after World War II, the US invested a lot of time and effort into the development of nuclear weapons. National Security became a part of the American culture, and the government began pouring umpteen dollars into its military buildup. Power was the goal, and power for the US was gained through military force where security was measured in terms of armies and their capacity to mobilize effectively and quickly.

Arms and security became the paramount goal of the US, and its importance was equated to the fact that war between the Soviets and the United States was inevitable. Hence, preparation for war became essential for maintaining national security, and this preparedness consequently led to the arms race. But the trade-off was drastic. Domestic problems, such as crime and education, were neglected and have come back, today, to haunt these nations severely. In hindsight it seems that in the midst of the cold war rationality was overshadowed by ideology that promoted the need to build arms to deter the opponent and protect the nation-state.

Children are the future of our world and, therefore, it is our responsibility to prepare them to make the best of their lives. However, globally, we continue to allow the economic exploitation of children as cheap labor making them put at stake their education, health, and even their lives. According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), child labor is estimated at about 250 million worldwide. These children range between the ages of 5 and 14, with around half of them working full-time. Of this figure, 140 million are boys and 110 million are girls. Sixty-one percent of them are located in Asia, 32 percent in Africa, and 7 percent in Latin America. While child labor is mostly found in developing countries, industrialized economies are not entirely immune. In fact, in Eastern and Central Europe, child labor has been reappearing in the wake of social and economic dislocation caused by the transition to a market economy.

The ILO figures stated above do not include the number of child workers in developed nations. However, the world’s superpower has some staggering statistics of its own. According to study by the US General Accounting Office, between 1983 and 1990, there was a 250 percent increase in child-labor violations. In addition, a three-day ‘sting’ operation by the Department of Labor discovered that more than 11,000 children were working illegally with roughly 100 adolescents killed and a further 70,000 injured while at work in the service sector. Maybe the US’ greatest depiction of child labor involves the many migrant children: In the 1980s, the United Farm Workers union estimated that 800,000 under-aged children worked harvesting crops in the US agricultural sector. A decade later, a survey of Mexican American children working on farms in New York state showed a third of them had been spra
yed with pesticides. These standards truly illustrate the unfairness associated with child labor.

So, why is child labor so popular? From an economic standpoint, manufacturers are able to gain workers for a portion of the costs associated with adults. As one manufacturer in Pakistan stated: “They [the children] make ideal employees… I hire them first and foremost because they’re economical. For what I’d pay one second-class adult weaver, I can get three boys, sometimes four, who can produce first-class rugs in no time.” This statement encompasses the general sentiment associated with child labor. In fact, in Pakistan child workers make up 90 percent of the carpet makers’ work force. Pakistan, however, is not the only culprit; its neighboring country – India – is actually plagued with the largest number (estimated between 60 to 115 million) of child workers.

What are the reasons for child labor? The major determinant of child labor is poverty. Even though children are paid less than adults are, whatever income they earn is of benefit to their families. In addition to poverty, the lack of adequate and accessible sources of credit forces poor parents to engage in either bonding or selling their child’s labor. It is amazing that, in this time and age, as we head for the twenty-first century, certain mentalities still persist. The treatment of children in such a manner is utterly disturbing! The first question that comes to mind in such situations is “how can a parent allow such treatment of their own flesh and blood?” The answer is simple. In
a society where the parents are programmed to undermine the value of education, poverty persists an
century old traditions upheld. In fact, most of these families are large, and with more mouths to feed, the importance of education is neglected for the child and replaced with the necessity of providing food and shelter. It should be noted, however, that birth control programs that are successful in reducing birth rates, also impact the decline in child labor. In a lot of these cases, though, girls are more at a disadvantage since they are often forced into such acts as prostitution to make ends meet.

In Thailand, for example, it is estimated that 800,000 children, mainly girls, work as prostitutes. In Brazil they are 500,000, and in India 400,000. These children run enormous risks: they can be infected with AIDS or contract other diseases, fall prey to acts of violence or suffer psychological damage. But prostitution is merely one part of the picture; some children are also abused for pornographic purposes. In fact, child pornography has been a focus of many debates in the Western societies. Children, hence, are faced with a lot more obstacles than just working in the fields or factories. This leads us to a critical question: How do we determine child exploitation?

Well, foremost, everyone seems to agree that any child who is put in a position of prostitution or pornography is being exploited. What is harder to define is with concern to other means of survival. It must be evident that the issues of child labor are not clear-cut. There are a range of things kids do that can be justified as not being exploitation, such as: helping around the house, baby sitting a baby brother or sister, working a part-time job but being provided with a right to an education. However, the line is obviously crossed when we have Multinational’s (MNCs) hiring children to work sixteen hour shifts for pennies, when we have children who are placed into warfare and separated from their families, or when we have children working in hazardous environments such as mines, stone pits or in chemical factories. These acts are unjustified and can scar a child for life.

In conclusion, maybe the using of children as workers is economical, but is it socially and culturally correct? Is it fair to deny a child his or her right to an education? To make him or her risk their life and health? And who can we hold responsible for this continued cycle of child labor? Is it the employers or the parents? How can we make change for the better, or is there even any need for change? With the rapid urbanization of the world, more children are being pushed to work. The question we propose to you is at whose expense are we gaining this cheap labor?