Globalization – hate it, but cannot live without!

Normal people has problems with school, work, friends or I don’t know – that the pet is hungry and they have to go back home and feed it. I am not normal – I have a lot of strange thought going on in my head, which I guess are not typical for the “standard” young person. In my head is globalization, but I don’t like this word so much (it’s kind of scary), so I will replace it in this text with something else – maybe “green”!

I am wondering how much green influenced my own, very private life, and how my life would look like without it. Right now I can easly say that I am a global citizen (of course thanks to green). And I don’t think so because of some higher ideas, no! There is a lot of proofs from my daily life, being global citizen it is not a choice or something what I wanted. It just happened! I am waking up in the morning and opening my computer and checking e-mail. There is always a lot of them, because I am “living in a few different time zones”. Then I go to school or to the office, listen to some Arabic music (recently mainly Amr Diab, but as well a bit of Spanish), when I am bored in a bus I text some of my friends (and believe me not those from Poland). My job (what is not really a job, but what I am doing right now) is to contact filmmakers from all around the world and get their movies to my film festival. The second job is to write youth project, of course international one, or help my friends and partners white them, and many other stuff… My school – well I have right now only online classes with “classmates” from Czech Republic, Germany and UK, but originally from Pakistan, Russia, Belarus, Slovakia, South Africa, Croatia and maybe something more.

I realized that there is something wrong with me during new years eve. At first I was trying to follow each hour in which time zone people are celebrating now, secondly I was texting with my friends from four different continents and I guess I was enjoying it more then the party (well I had already a drinking party via skype!)

I have to admit – green conquered my life. There are basically no limitations. The communication via phone became very cheap, especially within Europe, but there is as well skype for free. The transportation is rather cheap as well, you have friends everywhere that they can host u, if not u can find some via different portals. Besides there are still different projects that let you (or sometimes u just have to) go around the world. Culture differences are not a problem anymore, at least not for me, I feel already the same everywhere (and for sure I don’t feel that Poland is my home). I guess there is only one limitation for green – visas (but it’s totally other topic).

Yes, it was nice to travel, make new friends, experience new cultures etc. But it was nice few years ago. Right now my life is design by green and it doesn’t feel comfortable anymore. I don’t know what I really dislike in this. Maybe that I don’t have my place I can call home, maybe saying goodbye permanently or maybe that I simply cannot fit into the environment I suppose to live, into the environment of xenophobic Polish people and really interesting polish boyfriends :)

It bothers me that in this greened world I don’t really have my privacy and everyone knows everything. I have already limited access to my facebook for around 90% of my “friends”. I went through my online profile and deleted most of the stuff I have found about me (if it was possible to delete). But in this greened world somehow it happens that everyone knows everyone, people talk, gossip exchange information about the others. It might happen that you will do something and the next month some friends from the other part of the glob will know about it, through the strange chain of connections. On Monday I have to go to the airport, who knows what will happen… whom I will meet…

Why Barack Obama got a Peace Nobel Prize?

Thanks to Nobel Committee in the next few days the world will talk about Barack Obama and why he won the Peace Nobel Prize. The official explanation was: “The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples.”

In the rest of the official announcement we can find same other arguments for Obama like:
- Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons
- Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics
- Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position
- Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving international conflicts
- The vision of a world free from nuclear arms

So the question that world is asking today is – ok all of this is nice, but is it enough to get the prize? Until I will get to my opinion in this field, I want to open the new topic – how does it happen that Obama got a nomination. There is a very limited group of people who can submit the nomination to Oslo. Only presidents of the countries, parliaments and I guess prime ministers and do it. It mean that only the country authorities can propose someone for nomination. I am so curious which country nominated Barack Obama? For sure it was not United States of America…

Barack Obama is a very good diplomat, and actually even during the elections there was a big hope that he will positively influence the climate of the international community. Right now I have no idea what is he doing with domestic policy, but I appreciate his foreign policy a lot. For me the most important action of Barack Obama was to cancel building elements of the missile defence system in Poland. It shows that he prefers the way of dialogue not armament. As well this action is a very important step in the relation with Russia and Iran, having in mind that those countries were extremely against it.

As well Obama is trying to be a part of the Middle East peace process. He express it during his first days of the presidency, when the first person he officially called was the prime minister of Palestine. Then we have his visits in the Middle East with the famous speech in Cairo. Actually it was not famous in Europe, not at all, but I spent the whole summer in Egypt and I was talking to many strangers of the street, and same friends, different people in general. The topic of Obama’s speech in Cairo was coming back very often, and always with a big hopes.

Let’s be honest. Right now Obama is the most influential person in the only world superpower, what mean in the whole world. And we all know that actions of the US president are important. Looking backward of the last 8 years of the Bush presidency we can see the difference between them, how much the world depends on their actions, words and even small gestures! Obama is taking his chances, is making a small steps in the direction to peace. Yes he is doing nothing special, noting that isn’t part of his everyday “job description”, but he is doing it in a right way – the way of dialogue. So maybe Obama doesn’t deserve this prize, but the world does.

For me this Nobel Prize has to meanings – first it is antiBush prize, that shows the world that we didn’t like the politics of Bush and his administration, and that is example for the world leaders what not to do. Secondly, it is prize for the world and the future. It is almost like with Al Gore and climate change, the prize was awarded to show the world the direction, to appreciate the small things that make a real change, to underline same good practices in the international community that are implemented right now. This is not a prize for Barack Obama, it is a prize for dialogue and mutual understanding as a tool for achieving peace.

European elections - chances for a great turnout?

I shouldn't write this post today, because it is already the voting day in most of the European countries. And it is a common rule that the day before elections nad during the election day it is not allowed to promote any of the candidates. I would like to concentrate on the turnout and the general engagement in the elections then on concrete people, but unfortunately I will have to write down few names.

First, European Elections are always counted as this second category ones. In my textbooks I have found information that only people who had their political careene behind them, and those who don't have enough experience to get to the national parliament are the candidates to EU parliament. It has changed in Poland. I would suggest that the only, or the main reason why the most famous politicians want to get into the EU Parliament is only financial - MEP's are getting much higher salaries and much more money for their offices then the politicians in the country. Therefore today we will see many famous names whila casing a vote.

But I would like to focus rather on the expected turnout. During the last elections in 2004 we had almost the lowest turnout (20,42%), just after Slovakia (16.66%). There were of course countries with tunrout over 80% like Malta (82.37%), Luxemburg (90%) or Belgium (90.81%), where the voting is mandatory, and I want to compare Poland to those countries, but the avarage turnout was 45,5% and unfortunately Poland was very far from this result.

This time the turnout in Poland might be high. Under "high" I understand high for the Polish conditions, it means for sure lower then in the national elections, but not that low as last time. In 2007 in the parliamentary elections we have turnout: 53,88%, in 2005 it was only 40,57%, and in 2001 it was 46,29%. Looking on those numers, taking into the account that the elections to EP are still new and not so many people (especially older generation) doesn't understand that, I would say that the high turnout we can have will be over 35%.

What are the reasons, why I think that this time there will be bigger interests then last time:

1. a lot of famous candidates - this campaing started already very dynamic with the question who will candidate. And from the very beginning all the political parties in Poland were presenting very famous people, even those who are right now having important functions in the country. There was already a lot of discussions about Zbigniew Ziobro, who was in the last goverment very controversial Minister of Justice, but on the lists you will find a lot of people from the current parliament and the local goverment structures.

2. There was no campaign to European Parliament, it was the national campaign - unfortunately the public discussion about Europem and EP was almost not existing. But I still have in my mind the TV spots of conservative party, who was refering to the national elections of 2007, and saying that till not the liberal party haven't done nothing for Poland, and therefore we should vote on conservative one. Acctually almost all spots was about the current situation in Poland, what the current goverment haven't done and how this party will fight for Polish rights in european parliament. I have to say it - was really disgust with all this campaign

3. The 20th universary of polish freedom - on 4th of June we had 20th universary of the first free elections in the whole Central adn Eastern Europe which tool place in Poland. That time in 1989 the society could organize themselves, go to vote, and thanks to them 99% of seats in Senat and 100% of seats (those which were the subject of the elections) went to the opposition. It was only possible becouse of the huge turnout and peoples involvement. And this year during this universary it was the popular slogan, that we got already rights, and right now we have to use those rights. And how the future will look like depends on us, therefore we should go and vote. Maybe when I am writing this, it sounds obvious and silly, but what I have seen that day was really impressive and this message got to a lot of people

4. People's engagement - I doon't know what is the general involvement in the elections. I suppose it is a bit higher then last time, and people knows already a bit more, what MEPs do, and how does it works. I don't see a lot on streets, but two days ago I was really nicely surprised. There was an old lady in the bus with the small leaflets with the candidate's name and list. And she was giving out them to the people in the bus and talking to her. When we got out I had to say few words, simply get to know for whom is she aggitating. Well obviously she was for the conservative party, and it was hard to talk to her, when we get into the topic of values (because it is all about what is more important for you - I was talking about human rights and development aid and she was talking about subsidies for children and families). What I was amazed about, is that she was doing it. I told her that maybe I have different candidate, but appreciate her work, becuase it is what civic society is all about.

Maybe this story with this lady will be described later on, the contend of our conversation etc.

Right now is time to go and vote:)

20 years of freedom

Exackly 20 years ago there were first free elections in Poland, and in the whole Central and Eastern Europe. 20 years ago we made comunism collapsed. Many people in the world associate end of comunism with the fall of the wall. For me it was the 4th of June 1989. This is a date of the first free elections.

How does it happened? I don't want to go very deep into the history, although it is very interesting. Worth mentioning is that the process of liberalization of the system looked totally different from country to country. Taking the example of hungary this process started after 1956, the similar situation was in Czechoslovakia, where after the Prague Spring in 1968 there was no big crisis. In Poland there were very visible changes in the system in the beginning of 80's, for example the trade unions were legal, as well many other things. In 1980 the Solidarność (trade union) was created. But in December 1981 the home war in Poland started, the goverment attempted to destroy the union and the years of repressions began. This is the main difference between comunism in Poland and other countries (I am not talking about Balkans and countries in Asia).

Then in late 80's there was a huge consolidation and union of people. The very strong movement around Solidarity became once more active. This forced the goverment to start talking with Solidarity-led opposition. The talks tool place on the famous round table, and there was the agreement to organize the first free elections.

Those elections wasn't totally free, in the literature they are called semi-free, but it was already the important step, because for the first time in the history comunists let opposition run to the parliament. The election to the lower chamber (Sejm) were not totally free. During the round table, both sides agreed that 65% of Seats in Sejm will be for Communist Party and its satellite parties. Only 35% of remining seats were a subject of election. For all those seats both communists and the opposition could compete, but there was no competition. Polish society decided that all those 35% of seats will be given to Solidarność. Similar things happened in Senate (higher chamber), where we had totally free elections. 99 out of 100 seats won people from Solidarity. Therefore the first non-communistic goverment in the Central and Eastern Europe was created.

I am really praud of this history. I was watching news all the day. First when the president of my city with few people involved in the elections in 1989 announced that they want to establish the day of 4th of June the Day of Freedom.

In the evening there were plenty of concerts from different cities - Gdansk, where of the shipyard everything happened and Warsaw. Listening to those concert I realized that I know what is my culture. I have always had this problem - what to do during international evenings (during different international events). I was having problem to define in what kind of country I live, what is typical. Right now I have a hint. That are all those bands and songs created in the 80's and beginning of 90's. All of them political, all of them went through cenzorship, all of them amazing and so meaningfull. I love this polish rock with the deep meaning of lirics.

In the end of one concert there was Scorpions playing the song "Wind of change". I am not sure how many people is aware that this song was created in 1990, after what have happened in Poland and the other countries. And this change in the title, it is the end of communism, the new era in our lives, the end of repression, end of cold war, and FREEDOM and PEACE.

Here are the few songs, which are very important for me, and are ery connected with this day.

Wind of Change - the Scorpions


Po co ta wolnosc - KULT


W życiu piękne są tylko chwile - DZEM

Obama's Inauguration Speech - my comments

It was yesterday, the 44th president of United States took his office. There were millions of people in Washington's Mall and much more watching him in TV or most probably online (as I did).

I watch the “show”, today in the morning I red the whole speech one more time. And I would like to write about my first impression, parts that everyone is writing about because it looks like they will be famous, parts of the speech which are a bit more questionable for me and the general meaning.

Enjoy reading...

1. My first impression

I don't know what I was expecting from this speech, maybe to be great, maybe to be memorable, I wanted from this speech to surprise me. I was a bit disappointed. For the first time when I was watching Obama's speech I had the impression that he was very stressed. He was not smiling at all, his face was showing rather anger or maybe it was his seriousness. Instead of empathy he showed us that right now he is the most powerful man in the world.

The speech in general was good. He done, what he had to. He spoke about peoples' responsibility, how great is America and people living there, no matter of race, sex, level of education etc. He showed that he knows what people needs, he address his father roots and talked about the world policy (but not in this way that America will really get involved, it was rather call to other leaders for action). It was about everything he had to talk.

The thing that impressed me was his good relations with Bush, I was watching them meeting in White House then going together to Capitol and then after the change had happened. They looked like a good friends and somehow I was very happy about it.

2. What the world will remember

From this kind of important speeches there are always some parts that world will remember like:

"Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1933, in the midst of the Great Depression

“My fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.” John F. Kennedy (1961)

“There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.” Bill Clinton (1993)

So what was special in the Obama's speech and why?

I have chosen three quotes that I think will be remembered for a long time. Sentences written with passion, important for Americans and “smart”.

“Today, I say to you that the challenges we face are real, (...) They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America, they will be met.”

- after this as far as I remember he got an applause; somehow many people said it before that this sentence has to be in the speech; it is good formulated and it will be memorable because of the content. Right now everyone expected Obama to say it, but in few years the reality will be just a history and the words will stay.

“To all other peoples and governments who are watching today, (...) from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born, know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.”

- tis was important because of the US position in the world. As we know there was a huge anti-Bush movement around the world which influenced the status of US. Moreover Americans truly believe that they can and should rule the world (somehow I can agree because they have money they want to spend), but they want to have this feeling that they are someone special (who doesn't). This words says America will be once more the world's superpower that everyone will respect.

“a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.”

- Obama address here in the very touching way the issue of race, somehow no matter who you are now it is not like 60 years ago, now we are equal. He proof it by being chosen as the 44th US president


3. What I don't like or don't understand

and in the end quotes that surprised me or just I want to comment.

“To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect,(...) To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history — but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”

I was shocked that he address Muslim world at first. And I don't know how to understand this words. Let's say Obama make a move to the cooperation, talks about mutual respect and that US is willing to help, but I don't like how those words are formulated. I have this impression that Obama has very negative opinion about this part of the world. And for me this words are rather words of criticism than encourage to cooperation.

“With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in it's defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.”

I don't get this part either. I think that the aim of this was to show how strong America will be under the Obama's administration. Just I cannot imagine that he could say that “we will not apologize for our way of life”, he said as well that he won't defense it, but the meaning for me is clear. He doesn't take the responsibility for global warming, and for the wars Bush started, he doesn't think that it is US fault. Maybe Americans would like it, I don't know, I would like to hear any comments, but my understanding of this is rather negative.

4. The meaning

I think that this speech will be commented for a really long time. I like what I red today in the polish newspaper. That Obama is not to black but also not to white, he is not to young and not to old and he has not too much experience but also not to little. And I can say following this words he had chosen the right time to be a president:)

Before Barack Obama inauguration

It is about 3 hours before the ig change in US politics, as hopefully in world's politics as well. I felt the enthusiasm of people while being in US and it makes me follow what happens now.

Because the elections of 2008 are the topic of my master thesis, I would like to make same small analysis, just before the inauguration.

1. What will be in Obama's speech

There are of course many topics which will be covered in the speech. Obviously the economy, and most probably Obama will repeat parts of his speech from the election day. He will address the issue that he needs help from all Americans to make a change and it won't be a easy tasks, and all Americans had to get prepared for not easy times.
Secondly he has to address the issue of country's security, hopefully he will mention something about closing Guantanamo prison (as a human rights lawyer I think he should do it). I am still curious what he will say about wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have still in my mind his words from the campaign "We have to take the nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists" (only countries has nuclear weapons!). It makes me think what will be his position in the relation with Iran, Israel, Pakistan?
I don't think he will say a lot about world politics or international relation besides the security issue. I just hope or rather would like to hear about his plans for the global politics, his plan for fighting with global problems, helping the failed states, eradicating poverty, improving security in the developing world. And as the first Afro-American president who even during the campaign was traveling to Kenya, to the country of is father origins, I think he should do it (and that is not American point of view:) ).

There might be one more thing, very important in the speech - the bipartisanship. I think (or rather hope) that Obama wants to seek for the wide cooperation within the country. He wrote about it in his second book - "The Audacity of Hope". He wrote about his first time in the Capitol meeting the politicians and only the few of them, the oldest generation could easily cooperate for the better future. This situation used to be normal just after the second world war, because the politicians had the some background (most of them were soldiers in the was). In the last cupple of years both parties couldn't cooperate with other almost at all. In the book Obama dislike it, and hopefully bipartisanship will the the direction where his politics would go.

2. The meaning of Obama's speech

There is right now more then 2 million people in Washington or maybe even more already. In the universities students are organizing watch parties, many people watch the news at home, most probably the speech will be seen by most of the world.
There are very high expectations towards Barack Obama. What make this day even more special he will be the first Afro-American president in the history. He takes the country after the second less popular president in US history (first one was Nixon who had to resign because of Watergate). There is a lot of things to fix in US (economy and the biggest crisis in the last years) as well as in the world (Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo, Energy crisis, failed states).

All of this leads me to the thought - Americans expect that this speech will be as important as "I have a dream speech" of Martin Luther King in 1963. Those two events will be compared and connected. Barack Obama will be standing in the some place as Martin Luther King, and he will be speaking as a first Afro-American president, while Martin Luther King spoke of his desire for a future where blacks and whites, among others, would coexist harmoniously as equals.

Maybe Obama's speech will be the last stage of Martin's Luther King dream being realized.

Or maybe he is just good selling product for all media, and this whole enthusiasm is caused by good PR?