[Radix] Re: Radix Digest, Vol 105, Issue 1
George Kent
kent at hawaii.edu
Wed Jan 28 18:42:10 PST 2009
Fred, sure it would be good to have an effective building quality
control system. The question is, what kind? What would meet all the
requirements, including political acceptability?
Any approach that would get their people into a sustained conversation
about this question would be a good way to get started. A bad way
would be to have outsiders formulate some pet idea and then try to
push it on them. The local experts need to be active participants in
shaping the remedies.
Can someone find funding to organize a small conference on quality
control for school building architecture? Then maybe some Chinese
could be invited into the planning committee. And maybe the conference
itself could end up somewhere in China, maybe Sichuan?
Aloha, George
On Jan 28, 2009, at 3:12 PM, Frederick Krimgold wrote:
> Dear Safe Schoolers,
> On the constructive side, would it not make good sense to support
> development of an effective building regulatory/quality control
> system. Building regulation is the core of the developed world
> approach to earthquake mitigation. Would it not be reasonable to
> focus on a form of regulation that might function for the benefit of
> the people in a place like Szechuan? Free market ideology and
> deregulation have been an obstacle to serious thinking about
> creative, appropriate, competent, honest regulatory systems. They
> may be local. They may represent the population's right to safety.
> Fred
> Dr. Frederick Krimgold
> Director
> Disaster Risk Reduction Program (DRR)
> Virginia Tech
> Advanced Research Institute (ARI)
> 4300 Wilson Blvd., Suite 750
> Arlington, VA 22203 USA
> Main: 703-528-5500
> Direct: 703-387-6033
> Fax: 703-528-5543
> Email: krimgold at vt.edu
> Web: www.ari.vt.edu/DRR
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 28, 2009, at 6:17 PM, George Kent wrote:
>
>> I agree that the causes of the school structure failures probably
>> were mixed, and not entirely knowable to us. However, we shouldn't
>> be too preoccupied with identifying causes. Some remedies, such as
>> increasing transparency and the rights-based approach, are sensible
>> regardless of what the details of causation might have been. Unlike
>> prosecutors who need to know the history in detail, I think our
>> work needs to be more forward-looking.
>>
>> Aloha, George
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 28, 2009, at 1:08 PM, bwisner at igc.org wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Fred, Marla, George and Terry,
>>>
>>> Having been in Sichuan in November and talked about the school
>>> problem extensively with many Chinese experts (engineers,
>>> geographers, journalists, social workers), I am convinced that the
>>> situation is very complex and the causes mixed. There may well
>>> have been some cost cutting in come cases. However, I think some
>>> of the poor construction was due to the extreme speed with which
>>> schools have been built over the past decade or so, ironically in
>>> compliance with a national policy of providing more infrastructure
>>> and investment in the western and northwestern parts of the
>>> country that have not benefited from the the bonanza of export
>>> oriented growth as the coastal zones have. When I was in Bejiing
>>> in 2005 the central government had just announced a lifting of
>>> school fees in the West of China, another part of the of the
>>> policy to redress spatial inequalities that have grown as a result
>>> of economic globalization.
>>>
>>> I would be very reluctant to attribute the tragedy to any one
>>> cause (e.g. "corruption" or "authoritarianism") as blanket terms.
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> BEN
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Frederick Krimgold
>>> Sent: Jan 28, 2009 1:32 PM
>>> To: Marla Petal
>>> Cc: radix at ecie.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Radix] Re: Radix Digest, Vol 105, Issue 1
>>>
>>> Dear Marla,
>>> I applaud you passionate comment on the failure of school
>>> consttuction in Szechuan. However, "shoddy" construction can
>>> result from ignorance, incompetence, poor judgement and/or
>>> corruption. Terry seems to lay it all to corruption of an
>>> authoritarian system. Is that what the courageous journalists
>>> found to be the case? Was the shoddy construction the result of
>>> criminal intent? Was material stolen or adulterated, knowingly?
>>> Was there and inspection system that was corrupted?
>>> In cases that I am familiar with, the problem is often ignorance
>>> or poverty as much as corruption. Poor design, poor construction
>>> and poor materials are often the consequence of ignorance and
>>> poverty rather than criminal intent. i feel that it is our job to
>>> attack the ignorance and poverty as well as the corruption.
>>> Public support and active involvement in safety and regulation of
>>> construction is a force that needs to be mobilized in parallel
>>> with more formal regulatory approaches.
>>> Dr. Frederick Krimgold
>>> Director
>>> Disaster Risk Reduction Program (DRR)
>>> Virginia Tech
>>> Advanced Research Institute (ARI)
>>> 4300 Wilson Blvd., Suite 750
>>> Arlington, VA 22203 USA
>>> Main: 703-528-5500
>>> Direct: 703-387-6033
>>> Fax: 703-528-5543
>>> Email: krimgold at vt.edu
>>> Web: www.ari.vt.edu/DRR
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 28, 2009, at 11:30 AM, Marla Petal wrote:
>>>
>>>> Terry - Thank you so much for bringing up a painful and important
>>>> issue. On the one hand I share your pessimism. On the other hand
>>>> I think that even the most authoritarian regimes respond to
>>>> pressure from their populations (witness significant progress in
>>>> school safety in Uzbekistan). So it seems to me that it is our
>>>> ethical obligation to find ways to express our solidarity with
>>>> the grassroots efforts to contribute to disaster prevention.
>>>> Surely we cannot be of real professional or expert support if we
>>>> use the guise of diplomacy to justify total silence.
>>>>
>>>> The first time this hit me between the eyes was at IDRC in Davos
>>>> this past year is when the Sichuan earthquake experience was
>>>> being reviewed. Amidst a good deal of congratulatory remarks
>>>> about the earthquake response, there was NO MENTION of the
>>>> terrible toll taken by shoddy school construction.
>>>>
>>>> It wasn't until the last day of the conf. in a special session,
>>>> with only 100 people left, that our Chinese colleagues and others
>>>> finally took the stage. One of the presenters had a couple of
>>>> slides of disinformation on school impacts which he hurried
>>>> through with obvious embarrassment (one hopes because of the
>>>> transparent lies they contained).
>>>>
>>>> I could well understand the horrible quandry and vulnerability of
>>>> our Chinese colleagues, and had no desire to put them on the
>>>> spot. But I was livid with the rest of our colleagues for
>>>> completely failing to raise questions or make any kind of
>>>> diplomatically worded or even condolence statement of any kind.
>>>> Their total silence struck me as either total indifference or
>>>> crass livelihood protection. The silence of our "professional"
>>>> and "expert" colleagues in the face of blatant disinformation,
>>>> the collusion with the re-writing of history by the authorities
>>>> strikes me as a betrayal of all of the bereaved parents and their
>>>> dead children.
>>>>
>>>> I think that Walter Hays and myself were the only ones to break
>>>> the silence. Both of us, independently, did exactly as you
>>>> suggest - we tried to put our shame into a collective and
>>>> universal context of failure to prevent disaster. We said that
>>>> this has happened and will happen elsewhere. (It isn't hard
>>>> coming from the U.S. to cite our failures in Katrina or to refer
>>>> to the worst earthquake - the one yet to come in California).
>>>> And we tried in some modest way to value truth-telling a pre-
>>>> requisite for involving communities in the hard tasks that they
>>>> must take on (like monitoring school construction). (While in
>>>> China, I also tried to invoke their own historic strengths to
>>>> suggest that bereaved parents could be engaged as "barefoot
>>>> architects and engineers" becoming partners in monitoring school
>>>> construction practices - providing an opportunity to turn anger
>>>> and grief into a commitment to the next generation.)
>>>>
>>>> Indeed we do need people to live and fight another day - and we
>>>> do need some of us to remain persona grata and to visit China.
>>>> And when we get there we need to meet parents and school
>>>> principles and support their advocacy efforts.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to suggest, that in some kind of 'diplomatic' and
>>>> subtle means of redress that we collectively nominate and
>>>> campaign for School Principle Ye Zhiping to be given the Sasakawa
>>>> Award next year. In addition to validating his courageous
>>>> leadership and the importance of school safety, it would also
>>>> validate the tremendous service done by just a couple of
>>>> courageous journalists who took great risks to uncover the truth,
>>>> even while bulldozers were fast at work to plow it under.
>>>>
>>>> So as a result of this posting, I may never be granted a visa to
>>>> visit China again. Hopefully someone else who goes will convey
>>>> our collective condolences to parents and assure them of our
>>>> solidarity in making sure that every new school is a safe school
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> Marla
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 27, 2009, at 9:00 PM, radix-request at ecie.org wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Send Radix mailing list submissions to
>>>>> radix at ecie.org
>>>>>
>>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>>>> http://ecie.org/mailman/listinfo/radix
>>>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>>>> radix-request at ecie.org
>>>>>
>>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>>>> radix-owner at ecie.org
>>>>>
>>>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
>>>>> specific
>>>>> than "Re: Contents of Radix digest..."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Today's Topics:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Follow up & thanks on China disaster meeting
>>>>> (T.G.Cannon at greenwich.ac.uk)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Message: 1
>>>>> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:29:43 +0000
>>>>> From: T.G.Cannon at greenwich.ac.uk
>>>>> Subject: [Radix] Follow up & thanks on China disaster meeting
>>>>> To: radix at ecie.org
>>>>> Cc: terrycannon at blueyonder.co.uk
>>>>> Message-ID: <20090127152943.a2ufkztu28swgwgw at skye.gre.ac.uk>
>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes";
>>>>> format="flowed"
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear RADIXers
>>>>> This letter is mainly for those who responded to my call for
>>>>> advice on
>>>>> how to deal with the presentation I gave last week on the Chinese
>>>>> earthquake. The meeting was co-hosted by Fondation Madariaga and
>>>>> the
>>>>> Chinese embassy to the European Union, and the Chinese
>>>>> ambassador was
>>>>> there along with many other officials. Two Chinese disaster
>>>>> specialist
>>>>> also spoke. You can see the programme and presentations at:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.madariaga.org/events/events-2008/46-2008/159-chinas-ability-to-cope-with-natural-disaster
>>>>>
>>>>> and see my Powerpoint.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the issues are of general interest to RADIX, I am sharing
>>>>> these thoughts, but I do especially want to thank Ben Wisner,
>>>>> George
>>>>> Kent, Terry Jeggle, James Lewis and John Wiener for their
>>>>> substantial
>>>>> messages to me. (Apologies for not responding individually to
>>>>> you, and
>>>>> I hope I have not left anyone out).
>>>>>
>>>>> It really helped to have your thoughts, though I think it would
>>>>> open
>>>>> up a very good if we were to discuss on RADIX the issue of how
>>>>> we deal
>>>>> with our approach to governments that have significant
>>>>> authoritarian
>>>>> tendencies. That is why I am sending my response to the list:
>>>>> this is
>>>>> a very general issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> While I came to the view (as a result of most of the comments
>>>>> from the
>>>>> above) for this meeting that I should be ‘diplomatic’ and "engage"
>>>>> with the officials in Brussels, and that the approach should be
>>>>> one of
>>>>> supporting reform and reformers, I still have very serious doubts
>>>>> about whether that will actually have an effect.
>>>>>
>>>>> I realise that part of the problem with the Chinese regime is
>>>>> that it
>>>>> does not respond to external pressure, seeing it (in a parallel
>>>>> way to
>>>>> Mugabe and some South African ANC ministers) as imperialist
>>>>> attacks.
>>>>> So how should outsiders comment on Chinese repression?
>>>>>
>>>>> One of my approaches at the meeting was to make it quite clear
>>>>> that I
>>>>> am not criticising China in isolation from critical comments that
>>>>> could be made about many other countries. I started by talking
>>>>> about
>>>>> Hurricane Katrina as an example of bad government, and when I
>>>>> spoke of
>>>>> corruption (re schools that were not constructed properly) I
>>>>> emphasised that this has to be seen in much a wider context. For
>>>>> this
>>>>> I mentioned the recent global financial crisis as a product of (in
>>>>> effect) corrupt behaviour in western banks, the British Aerospace
>>>>> corruption (linked to the UK government) over arms sales, and the
>>>>> Common Agricultural Policy as an example of a policy designed to
>>>>> deny
>>>>> development to the poor and support the already rich –
>>>>> institutional
>>>>> corruption if you like.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I mentioned rights, and the essential need for civil
>>>>> society to
>>>>> be enabled in relation to community-based disaster preparedness, I
>>>>> emphasised that this was in order to allow citizens to HELP the
>>>>> government to ensure that the government fulfils its remit of
>>>>> protecting its own citizens. Civil society can therefore be part
>>>>> of
>>>>> the process by which government achieves its goals against
>>>>> corruption
>>>>> at lower levels, rather than a threat to government.
>>>>>
>>>>> All this came after a rather positive account of the emergency
>>>>> response effort of the Chinese government (AND ordinary people),
>>>>> so
>>>>> that it was in context.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don’t share the optimism of most of my advisors that
>>>>> engagement is
>>>>> the best (or only) route. While many Chinese may themselves be
>>>>> uncomfortable about repression (including that related to the
>>>>> earthquake and other disasters), what has engagement achieved
>>>>> over the
>>>>> past two decades? See below on the Olympics; the doctor who blew
>>>>> the
>>>>> whistle on SARS has regularly been placed under house arrest
>>>>> around
>>>>> June 4 each year in case she makes some other kind of protest.
>>>>>
>>>>> The bereaved parents who started a law case against local
>>>>> governments
>>>>> that oversaw school construction have had their case dismissed.
>>>>> The
>>>>> human rights lawyer Huang Qi who acted for some parents to make
>>>>> other
>>>>> claims was imprisoned last May, and is still in prison, accused of
>>>>> betraying state secrets (a catch all and indefensible
>>>>> accusation). He
>>>>> is seriously ill, and has been offered release only if he gives
>>>>> up his
>>>>> human rights activities.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Relating to the Olympics, the government had agreed to improve
>>>>> its
>>>>> reputation to allow civil society activities during the Games. It
>>>>> designated four areas in Beijing parks for people to hold
>>>>> demonstrations – for which they had to make an application. As
>>>>> far as
>>>>> I know, none were ever permitted. Two women in their 70s who
>>>>> applied
>>>>> to hold a protest about the demolition of their homes were
>>>>> arrested
>>>>> and held without charge. Others were harassed.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Some of my advisors argued that I should not make links between
>>>>> the
>>>>> collapse of schools and corruption and repression with other
>>>>> recent
>>>>> issues (toxic baby-milk, Amur river chemical discharge, SARS, AIDs
>>>>> scandals
>>>>> ). I understand that this approach would have made it
>>>>> difficult or impossible to make a supportive engagement to “work
>>>>> with
>>>>> reformers” in the system who also share these doubts. BUT the
>>>>> issues
>>>>> are all linked by the type of power that is operating in China,
>>>>> and I
>>>>> cannot see how we can avoid analysing and criticising this form of
>>>>> power and how it links to disasters.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that part of our role (our duty) in RADIX is to make such
>>>>> analysis, how should we then relate it to action (and words) to
>>>>> make
>>>>> the analysis have an effect? This for me is the key missing
>>>>> link, and
>>>>> I am not convinced that “engagement” is an effective translation
>>>>> of
>>>>> our analysis into action.
>>>>>
>>>>> So this is where we need a debate on RADIX at least, to fathom
>>>>> out how
>>>>> we should do this.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not against the idea of engagement if it can be shown that it
>>>>> works, and that it is preferable to making loud critical remarks
>>>>> (in
>>>>> order to achieve reduced vulnerability). But I am far from
>>>>> convinced.
>>>>> Engagement and support to reform and reformers is very similar
>>>>> to the
>>>>> position of the British (and other western)government on countries
>>>>> like China, and in my view it is in danger of becoming a cop-
>>>>> out. Is
>>>>> there a RADIXal version of engagement?
>>>>>
>>>>> At the end, the Ambassador commented that he enjoyed my
>>>>> presentation
>>>>> very much!
>>>>>
>>>>> best wishes
>>>>> Terry
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> University of Greenwich, a charity and company limited by
>>>>> guarantee,
>>>>> registered in England (reg. no. 986729). Registered office:
>>>>> Old Royal Naval College, Park Row, Greenwich, London SE10 9LS.
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> This mailing list is provided by ECIE.ORG for RADIX
>>>>> To post a message, send it to: radix at ecie.org
>>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe:
>>>>> http://ecie.org/mailman/listinfo/radix
>>>>> See more information about ECIE: http://www.ecie.org/
>>>>> Radix - Radical Interpretations of Disaster:
>>>>> http://www.radixonline.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> End of Radix Digest, Vol 105, Issue 1
>>>>> *************************************
>>>>
>>>> Marla Petal
>>>>
>>>> mpetal at imagins.com
>>>> Home +41 22 740 2704
>>>> Mobile +41 76 240 8474
>>>> Skype: shmarla
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> This mailing list is provided by ECIE.ORG for RADIX
>>>> To post a message, send it to: radix at ecie.org
>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
>>>> http://ecie.org/mailman/listinfo/radix
>>>> See more information about ECIE: http://www.ecie.org/
>>>> Radix - Radical Interpretations of Disaster:
>>>> http://www.radixonline.org/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> This mailing list is provided by ECIE.ORG for RADIX
>>> To post a message, send it to: radix at ecie.org
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
>>> http://ecie.org/mailman/listinfo/radix
>>> See more information about ECIE: http://www.ecie.org/
>>> Radix - Radical Interpretations of Disaster:
>>> http://www.radixonline.org/
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This mailing list is provided by ECIE.ORG for RADIX
> To post a message, send it to: radix at ecie.org
> To subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
> http://ecie.org/mailman/listinfo/radix
> See more information about ECIE: http://www.ecie.org/
> Radix - Radical Interpretations of Disaster:
> http://www.radixonline.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ecie.org/pipermail/radix/attachments/20090128/e73a7e58/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Radix
mailing list