Living in Ceuta, my first thoughts...

So I am now a Spanish resident and live at the very tip of North Africa. The city is called Ceuta and it is located on the African continent, about seventeen kilometers from Gibraltar, the British rock to the south of Spain. On a clear day the Spanish peninsular is immensely clear and on the other side of the city is the Mediterranean Sea and the Moroccan horizon.

I hate to channel and criticise so early on in my new home and I am a firm believer that first impressions mean very little in the grand scheme of ones definitive opinions. Nevertheless I thought it would serve as useful to at least compare how I feel about the place now and view how my sentiments will change in the months to come.

Ceuta neither really feels like Spain nor like Africa. It does not feel like limbo though either – a confused or incongruous space between two continents - but I would understand those who felt it did.

Ceuta is politically called la “Cuidad Autonoma de Ceuta”; autonomy remains an integral part of the culture and the people. And so does individuality it seems.

“Ceutis” are very proud but are distinctly split when it comes to national politics…or nationalism. There are two main political parties in Spain, the PP (Partido Popular) and the PSOE (Partido Socialista); the latter is that of the current president, Zapatero. Due to its geopolitical positioning, it is fair to say that some Ceutis feel hard done by with regards to the influx of immigrants looking to reach mainland Spain.

Since the authorities will not accept the migrants across the 17km strip and Morocco refuses to allow them back down into the heart of Africa, they are left in migrant camps outside the city.

This puts a large financial strain on the local economy. It also encapsulates how Ceuta feels sometimes.

So close and yet so far, both from Spain geographically but also what the city represents. It almost feels confused, hard done by, spending years defending its territory for its Spanish neighbours across the Gibraltar strait.

For this very reason, some locals adopt a strictly conservative look on life, almost a subconscious push to preserve the land their ancestors fought to protect. Then there are those who enjoy the eclectic feel of the city and embrace the ethnic diversity. I have not yet met someone who is centrist, with balanced opinions on both political ends of the spectrum. It is early days though.

The racial makeup of the locals is also intriguing. Are they native Spanish with some Moorish blood, or the reverse; are they Portuguese descendants with Moorish roots or the reverse; where do the Jews and Hindus fit into the city?

Well, quite simply, Ceutis like to be seen as first Spanish Caucasian, then European by political association. Ceuta is quite clearly Africa on a map but you would not dare say that to a local Ceuti. The other religions represented in Ceuta are Islam, Judaism and Hinduism – all have their own temples and all have resided in Ceuta for over a century.

However those that represent these religions – Moroccans, Indians etc. all live in their detached communities and there is little noticeable meshing of cultures. I guess this can also be said of many large cities – London, New York, Paris, Madrid. A small city like Ceuta though, one expects to be different. It has been taken over, ruled and attracted a wide mix of civilisations and remains 70,000 small. The city does not cover much land, which means that in order for cultures to be separated must take some effort to achieve.

Ceuta is quiet right now and lacks youthful spirit that will arrive in the form of students come late September. The University of Granada has a campus here, the largest of which is for those studying “enfermeria” (nursing). Young people can really lift a place and change its character and landscape, not just physically but also theoretically. Since the majority of the students will also be from the Spanish mainland, that will also bring about differences to the locals here. I had no expectations of Ceuta however I did have an image of what it may look like and feel. But I am still calculating the place and its residents.

It is a very exciting place and carries a lot of political leverage, especially towards Morocco. I look forward to settling in and enveloping myself within all that Ceuta has to offer.

Knife crime in London: Shakilus Townsend

In the news last week was the depressing story of a honey trap involving young adults in South East London. The plot was incredibly well thought out and executed with cutthroat precision.

Before I deal with my own perceptions of the story, I should briefly explain who the actors were and what actually happened. There was a sixteen-year old called Shakilus Townsend, an ordinary young man who also happened to be a member of a South-east London gang, “DSN” (Don’t Say Nothin’).

He was involved in a relationship with a girl a year “wiser” than him. Her name was Samantha Joseph and Townsend had become progressively smitten by her. He had told his mother that he was in love and had planned to marry the girl one day.

Joseph, at the time, was also seeing eighteen-year old Danny McLean. He has been described in the mass media as a fully pledged gangster and the flagship face of the rival “Shine My Nine” gang (the number nine alluding to a 9 mm pistol). When McLean discovered that Joseph was already in a relationship with Townsend, he dumped her.

There are hazy accounts of what McLean had planned in retaliation but scared of his gang status, Joseph pledged her allegiances to McLean. And to prove her worth to him, she promised to seduce Townsend with a see –through flowery dress and lure him back to Thornton Heath on the bus where he would later be met by rival gang members and murdered.

As I continued to read the article online at BBC.com the nature of the story almost seemed theatrical. It shared uncanny resemblances to Jacobean and Shakespearean tragedies; the very type you would act out in school plays as a child. This was no play however, this was real life and a sad reminder that youth violence in London and other major cities of the UK is now a serious issue that police authorities struggle to control.

The lowest point of the report for me was not even that Townsend was murdered but the abstruse nature of how he was killed and the manner in which his peers colluded together to plan out his death.

The role of the girl, Samantha Joseph, was chilling as she permitted the homicide to go ahead. Her participation however was in defence of her own life and she was prepared to “get beats” if Townsend was not hunted down.

Therefore, even though she played a fundamental role in the execution, it would be wrong to suggest that Joseph was the principal culprit in this frightening tragedy.

Instead that title should be gifted to McLean, who had dumped Joseph and had “beef” with Townsend since he was a member of a rival gang. McLean’s desire to gain revenge on one of the parties, either Townsend or Joseph, led to former’s untimely death.

However, while it is important to identify the perpetrators in this murder, it is essentially more vital to comprehend why it happened. There are many questions one should ask in this case but the following four I feel are a good start:

• What would possess a sixteen-year old girl to perform a honey trap on a young man in love with her?

• Did McLean want to kill Townsend or did the beating get out of hand?

• Was Joseph aware of the extent of the beating Townsend was to receive?

• Why would Danny McLean want to murder Shakilus Townsend simply because Joseph and Townsend previously dated?

The first question should be answered in context with how Joseph has been portrayed by the police and the media. According to Chris Summers, who reported this story on the BBC, he claims “Shakilus Townsend would still be alive today if it had not been for a teenage temptress who toyed with his emotions and then betrayed him” at the very start of the article.”

Detective Inspector Barney Ratcliffe reiterated these sentiments by saying Joseph, “very calculatingly brought Shakilus to the scene, knowing that he was going to get beaten up. Ever since, she has been very cold and callous about the whole incident, with no signs of emotion…She made various phone calls during that journey bringing Shakilus to the scene, updating the gang through McLean as to where they were going to go and what was going to happen…She was an integral part of what was going to happen - if she hadn't been involved it wouldn't have happened.”

It comes across as amateurish for neither of these two individuals to consider the position Joseph was in at the time. Had she not plotted against Townsend, they might both have been dead. I am not advocating what Joseph did but for both reports to imply that Townsend would still be alive if it was not for her seems a tad naïve. I personally believe it would have led to a dual murder.

They fail to also recognise that Joseph was also living in fear at the time and remained anxious, expecting retribution of some sort on McLean’s behalf. She did not want to be beaten up so helped McLean attain vengeance on Townsend. I could pose a question of morality here and say Joseph was responsible for betraying Townsend but placing the utmost blame on her for the murder is failing to identify the profound intricacies of her situation then.

Question two and three are very much linked and will therefore be treated jointly. I am not really sure either Joseph or McLean really knew what would happen to Shakilus Townsend. He was stabbed several times and beaten with a baseball bat so members of the rival gang were intentionally hurting him.
To what extent they wanted to harm Townsend has not been widely discussed in the papers and the term “beats” is broad but in my experience, has never signified a desire to kill but to injure instead. Whether Joseph thought she was actually going to be murdered then (since she was concerned of receiving “beats” to) remains to be questioned but to go to the lengths she did for McLean either suggests a desperate plea for forgiveness or a subconscious hankering to see Joseph suffer. The latter would be strange given she actually enjoyed being with Townsend so fear could have been the overriding factor.

McLean was known to be ruthless by his fellow peers and the simple fact that Townsend represented a rival gang could have toppled his and his gang peers emotions to the very extent that they ended up slaying Townsend to death. Of course all these hypotheses beg to consider the psychological state of the youngsters involved. This can be highlighted not only from the coy cameo Joseph played to the retributive nature of McLean’s response but also how Joseph saw it proper for her to play the role she did in order to gain the respect and forgiveness of Danny McLean.

If one was to assume McLean wanted to murder Townsend, then the question of what specific criteria could McLean have ruminated in prior to his execution should be mulled over.

First and foremost he was a rival gang member and from reading up on gang literature myself, territory and association are two intrinsic elements of a gang that all members adhere to. In countries where gangs are rife and play an integral role in society, there can be opposing gangs that brothers join and look to murder each other in protection of their created families in a gang.

Secondly Townsend had relations, albeit nothing sexual (as Joseph has reiterated in court) with the same girl McLean casually used for sex. The woman’s role in a gang is normally always subservient and she is usually given tasks in the form of odd jobs; the dirty work the real gangsters cannot be bothered with dealing. The fact that Joseph was “used” for sex is inherently normal but what one should worry about is how she allowed this to happen and why she felt it was right to fulfill McLean’s desires.

When describing the characteristics and trends of any gang, it makes sense to draw comparisons with other gangs in countries around the world. Nonetheless, it does not always come across as logical when one considers peripheral factors, like the political and social nature of the individual country. The gangs I have been drawing comparisons with throughout this blog reside in pockets of the United States and large parts of some countries in Latin America. Both the United States and Central America share the greatest gang culture in the world.

They are a far cry from suburban London with its housing benefits, free state education, free healthcare along with a whole host of local initiatives to get kids off the streets and provide them with a function in society. Cherie Blair and the Street Weapons Commission further boosted these ideas: (http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/S/street_weapons_commission/index.html).

It serves as group of people from various sectors of the government and Scotland Yard, who decided to tour the country and speak to various people on the rising figure of guns and weapons on the streets of the UK. They then gathered the information for a report and have continued their work this year, meeting up with communities to try and tackle the problem. London has paid particular attention to the rising issues: http://www.london.gov.uk/gangs/news/reducing_gun_crime.jsp and many of the boroughs where these crimes take place and have been active in attempting to curb the violence.

Shakilus was the 18th victim of teenage violence in London in 2009, which may not seem a high number to some of you but for us, Londoners, it is an extravagant figure. The reason why his story received a great deal of press coverage was the nature of the murder rather than the homicide itself.

Another aspect of the whole ordeal is the fact that, realistically, we are not dealing with a group of gangsters for the most part. Instead we are talking about youths from comparatively affluent backgrounds of those associated with gang youths. For example: “Andre Johnson-Haynes, one of the youths involved in Shakilus's death, who was "insistent that he never wanted to be part of this gang culture" and attended the £14,000-a-year Emmanuel School in Clapham, south London, but became involved due to his friendship with McLean”.

Since the trial ended, Samantha Joseph and other members of the SMN gang have been convicted of murdering sixteen-year old Shakilus Townsend. None of these young adults are older than nineteen and all of them face substantial prison sentences.

Some of these kids are confused, some are forced into the gangs, some are “wannabe” gangsters that aspire to a life conveyed in rap songs written by the likes of Tupac Shakur, Big L and Notorious B.I.G to name a few. Why, one has to ask, when all these rappers died in gang shootouts? What is so incredibly dull and empty about these kids’ lives that make them want to pursue a life of danger and maybe eventually even death?

Is it the respect, the drug money, the lifestyle, the family they re-create within the gang or is it just a recalcitrant response to the mundanity of their lives? It is perhaps a combination of all the aforementioned possibilities. Regardless, the opportunities available to these youths in London (it is all relative of course) supersede a huge portion of the global population. Calling these children complacent would be wrong; the system has failed them as much as they have failed themselves. But from every disaster comes opportunity…to reflect and ameliorate. Youth weapon crime is a major concern in London and the rest of the UK and microanalyses of each town is definitely the best way to deal with the crime epidemic.

Considering this, I have respect for the peripatetic Cherie Blair. The country required a household name with political association to get the ball rolling and she appeared at a moment when the media were throwing jibes at our youth, labelling and stigmatising the future of our society. Hopefully the Street Weapons Commission will serve as a worthwhile endeavour and prevent young hopefuls like Shakilus Townsend from dying so young in the future.

If you are interested, this is a link to a tribute page on bebo in memory of Shakilus Townsend and this is a list of those that have been unfortunate victims of knife crime in London this year.

The Honduran military coup

The pseudo-continent of Central America is a part of Latin America that I feel passionately about and is quite often overlooked in the dynamics of global studies of the region. There is a country in the area that has grabbed world headlines in the past week for all the wrong reasons and consequently has raised all sorts of questions regarding the political instability of Central America. The country being discussed in this blog is Honduras.

I will treat this article more like a mini-essay and thus will explain the aims and objectives here: I will begin with a brief history of Central American politics in the past fifty years and then focus in on Honduran current affairs. I will then describe the notion of a ‘military coup’ both in Latin America and globally and consider different interpretations of what is happening currently in the country. Finally I will explore possible repercussions for the country and its people.

Central America is nestled in between the main continent of South America and the extensive power of USA. It automatically then becomes involved in the intercontinental activities of both regions. The most prominent in recent times has been drug trafficking; especially cocaine but others include prostitution of young children and women, human trafficking and exploitation of child workers.

(The drug routes have developed more increasingly complicated of late but for over forty years, Colombia and Bolivia have been hubs of crop cultivation, which logistically flowed through the Central American states before finding their fiscal trade offs in North America, Western Europe and beyond. It should be noted that the routes now involve Western Africa from the southern cone ports, like Buenos Aires and the Rio Grande do Sul territory of Brasil and while this is irrelevant for the nature of this essay, does provoke interest of how globalised economies affect all sectors of the financial system.)

Back to Central America, the region has undergone major transformations in recent times, buoyed by the Salvadoran and Guatemalan civil wars, the former a twelve-year internal conflict and the latter lasting thirty-six. The pre-requisites to the civil wars differ; El Salvador underwent economic disparities whereas in Guatemala the strife was built upon indigenous struggles. These events combined with the presence of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua created political uncertainty in the region, that remain to this day. The reason why I refer to the three aforementioned nations is not only because of their political influence but geopolitical location; Honduras is surrounded (with the exception of the northern border) by all three states, which has a corollary effect on how the country is ruled.

Nevertheless Honduras has been an exemplar representation of progressive democracy since 1986, with the demise of military rule that had governed from 1963-1981, which is even earlier than Spain’s road to democratisation. A new constitution introduced in 1987 helped to solidify a move to a liberal democracy, recognising civil rights and human rights activities. A regular change of government every four years since 1986 up to the modern day has also consolidated their aims of reaching a stage of consistent, cumulative democracy.

The nation’s people legitimately elected Manuel Zelaya in 2006 whom possessed a rather standard manifesto. He was a centre-left candidate who displayed a close interaction to the lower classes. In the 2005 election, he ran as a candidate that promised and eventually fulfilled salary increases to the teaching sector and raised the minimum wage. Zelaya did this to distinguish himself from previous presidents. However this detrimentally affected the national budget that in turn forced Zelaya to turn to alternative investment opportunities. That is where Hugo Chávez was able to help out, providing economic growth in Honduras in exchange for oil purchases. Chávez’s anti-imperialistic standpoint to the US was ill matched to Honduras who, in years gone by, had been an ally of the superpower. However, just by the growing bilateral relations, both local citizenry and outsiders began to ask questions of Zelaya’s future intentions. His desire to finally adapt the constitution was the final straw it seems and the military came to end to his tenure as leader.

In the news the oust has been widely explained as a military coup and whilst the terminology I do not disagree with, the association commonly made with coups in Latin America have overt assumptions. This is especially the case when the military happen to be involved. It is correct to say that there has been a military intervention in Honduras and describing it as a coup does not seem so far from the truth. Nonetheless the military here are not playing the role they once used to and this must be clarified. They are not implementing a dictatorial or totalitarian role in the country and they have not posed anti-American ideologies. In some respects it seems that the military have been used as the force of power to override Zelaya but not to ordain full control of the people. This situation is unlike that of, for example Operation PBSUCCESS in Guatemala in 1954 or the military coup of Goulart in Brazil in 1965. In these instances, amongst many others, the CIA played a pivotal role in aiding the military to topple the previous governments; however there has been no sign of such in the current Honduran case.

The country’s people in support of the Zelaya’s removal were concerned of another Chavista-esque ruler, worried by the flourishing relationship between Zelaya and the Venezuelan leader. Those still in support of Zelaya tend to be the working-class where Zelaya devoted a huge portion of his fiscal attention, building homes for the poor and accelerating the quality of basic services and infrastructure. The OAS and American presidency have voiced their opinions loudest, condemning General Micheletti and his military backing whilst other left-leaning governments in the region have criticised the move by the military to force Zelaya out of office. Both Obama and Hilary Clinton have distanced any US involvement in the overthrow and are supporting Zelaya in his bid to return to office. Clinton herself managed to negotiate an agreement that meant Oscar Arias, was present as the chief negotiator between Zelaya and Micheletti to help settle the current Honduran crisis. To get Arias onto the case is no small feat; he is the president of nearby Costa Rica and ex-Nobel Prize winner, acknowledging his efforts to end the civil wars in Guatemala and El Salvador during the eighties. The position of the United States then is vastly different from the past where it has served as a catalyst and assistance to the antagonist.

What one should be concerned with is the fact that a military coup has actually succeeded in the 21st century. Regardless of how long it will eventually last, the sheer reality that it has taken place is more the concern. If one is to consider the various international organisations that have been established worldwide – CIA, EU, IMF, UN and in Latin America – UNASUR, ALBA, MERCOSUR, OAS etc, the globalised world that we live in is supposed to guarantee protection for countries that abide to international law. There are obviously exceptions to that rule in this day – Afghanistan, Iran, Venezuela for example and perhaps even China. In addition, the increasing popularity of bilateral relations between countries in Latin America and elsewhere (Cuba-China, Chile-India, Venezuela-Russia) helps to homogenise the political arena and signify that it is harder to break rules today in case the country then has to face the grave repercussions. Having said that, Honduras has spoken up and demanded the rest of the region to recognise its concerns. Stimulated by Zelaya and his dependency on Chávez, much to the consternation of some, the military represented a cumulative apprehensiveness that climbed to its breaking point. It is my desire to say that the leitmotiv of military coups in the region has found an incongruent case in Honduras and how it was manifested may present the birth of 21st century citizen rebellion. When the whole world was concerned with the Iranian elections and the subsequent transient spell of uncertainty, Honduras grabbed headlines with forceful action, completely negating the rights of the leader and the country’s constitution.

It is irrelevant for me to voice whether I believe it was right to overturn Zelaya. One can measure up why it may have happened and even empathise with the idea that some did not want to see Honduras taken on a puppet role for Chavez and his quest for regional dominance. The more important issue is where does Honduras go on from this? Arias’ negotiations have slumbered after initial talks led to nowhere. Will this move by the Honduras catalyse further political disparity in the central American region? How will it affect the ARENA government, newly-established as the governing party of El Salvador – it is renowned to have affiliations with the left and still embodies leftist policy. How will this digest with Álvaro Colom in Guatemala after the clandestine nature of the Rodrigo Rosenberg case? In a region which boasts the highest homicide rates in the world and where underemployment is rife due to export-led (remittance) economies, the significance of stable political arenas is integral to solve the outstanding concerns of the area. One can only hope what has occurred in Honduras is understood both locally and globally and that, in the future, less bellicose operations are used to convey antagonism towards political leaders.

A fistful of mafia

There is an Italian journalist has won over the heart of many in his native Italy. He is the author of the controversial and highly publicised book ‘Gomorra.’ His name is Roberto Saviano and last year the Neapolitan mafia announced their intentions to kill him before the end of 2008. They failed.

The mafia in the South of Italy is notorious for the ability to keep promises especially when it involves the torturous murder of someone who has been scribbled onto their ‘list.’ Saviano’s book was a harsh reminder for the mafia that, not matter how hard they try, they lack flawlessness and their hierarchal nature can be penetrated by outsiders.

His book underlined the clandestine make up of the Camorra – the Neapolitan mafia who has, without this notion ever really being exposed, had control over the Campania region and most definitely Naples, for centuries now. The most calamitous of the Camorra’s work suddenly became a real life disaster, in the form of waste disposal. It is widely believed, but unconfirmed, that since the 80s the Camorra have been paying other municipalities in the country to dump their solid waste in landfill sites around the city of Naples. When these landfill sites became too difficult to deal with, the rubbish men refused to deal with the mess and went on strike.

This is when Neapolitans started leaving their rubbish on the streets for days on end, which piled up into sheer chaos. Researchers think that: 1) it was a money-making scheme for the Camorra and 2) chucking all sorts of waste on their land meant it was easier to cover any sort of surreptitious affair they had engaged with.

Either way, the land in the Campania region is now wholly contaminated and so nothing can really grow there or be consumed by locals due to the levels of toxicity in the foods. In fact only recently a group of Japanese scientists did a test of foods grown in the region and resultantly deemed them highly unsafe to eat. It is so ridiculous that a region so famous for its rich cuisine now has to regionally import its buffalo mozzarella from the Lazio region along with its vegetables!

This leads me onto another intriguing Italian figure in the form of Silvio Berlusconi. I am sure many would agree his rise into political fame should be admired. He was born into a middle-class Milanese household, educated in law and then started his own business in his late 20s - early 30s.

It was a developing project in the construction of flats. His first role in media where he would later become astoundingly successful was Telemilano in the 70s. He then bought other channels and invested in a media group, Fininvest in ’78 which was the start of a huge media empire.

His largest assets I would guess now are Mediaset that produces three national Italian TV channels, Panorama, which is an Italian political magazine, and he is also the chairman of AC Milan – one of the most prominent football teams in the world. He is also quite the character and is always the subject of debate, for one of his public actions or another. This includes making seedy sexual gestures at a woman getting into a car and using taxpayer’s money to get a chin lift. Whatever you make of him he is now the Italian prime minister again, for the third time – because the Italian public voted for him – or did they? I am simply baffled that a man that every Italian I seem to know hates, has ended up being voted in for a third term. I, therefore, feel it imperative to add that Signor Berlusconi has never ever been officially trialed for mafia link allegations.

However his senior political advisor Marcello Dell’Ultri, with whom Berlusconi shares a close relationship, is currently on trial for 'concorso in associazione mafiosa' for which he was deemed guilty in 2004 and sentenced to a decade in jail but has since appealed. Vittorio Mangano is also a name that springs up again and again. Mangano was introduced to Berlusconi by our little amico Dell’Ultri in the mid 70s. He was, at the time a member of the Cosa Nostra, which is a synonym for the Sicilian Mafia, and was hired as a stable keeper in one of Berlusconi’s villas. A natural progression obviously – from ‘taking care’ of the enemy to taking care of a horse, literally. Berlusconi has only been accused of helping the Cosa Nostra gain political influence through Forza Italia (Berlusconi’s coalition) in Sicily during the 90s which, along the road, led to the killing of Italian Christian Democrat (opposition party) Salvo Lima. Some associate the murder of Lima as a way of getting rid of an influential character that could have given Forza Italia a run for their money politically in the South. As it stood though, Lima was the face of the Christian Democrats and when he was assassinated, Forza Italia swept up all 61 of Sicily’s Parliament seats in the 2001 elections. Just a coincidence?

There is so much to admire about Italy – it is an incredibly beautiful country and has been so integral to Western culture that it almost seems incomprehensible that an organization like the mafia could still have a strong a hold on a First World country in the West. That is just it though; Italy is a complete rollercoaster of a nation and has never been the country for the light-hearted. Scandalous, sinful, dishonourable are all fairly justified adjectives to describe Italy.

It also happens to be a nation of great music, food and authors, authors like Umberto Eco and Dario Fo who have out rightly spoken in their support for the protection of Roberto Saviano and how it is the Italian man’s duty to preserve the right of basic civil rights. Saviano has had police protection for over two years now as he fends for his life against the mafia and continues to do so.

Berlusconi, on the other hand, recently speaking about a younger generation of politicians, and more precisely Obama (comparing him with Medvedev) said he could get along with anyone because of the following criteria he is young, he is good-looking and he is even tanned and so surely a humble relationship can be formed. The nature of Berlusconi’s character is that he is an entertainer, a bit like Bush Jr. but underneath that cheeky exterior lay a steel shell that is hard to break. As the world economy and politics becomes more globalised, one wonders how much longer the mafia can highly influence Italy. Globalisation is a major issue for Italy, as is migration and the progressive loss of their culture, through the standardizing of their language to the lowering birth rate and higher death rate. The Mafia is emblematic of Italian culture and it makes me curious to think whether there will be a new generation of Berlusconis, business-minded and also immensely nationalistic who see the mafia as a way of preserving their traditions.

Che presentation – 20th Century myth viewed as 21st Century Commodity

To the request of a friend or perhaps two this is a presentation I gave on Che Guevara in my fourth year about how his image has been misconstrued by Western media. When I read back on it, I realise some of my opinions have changed but I still think it could serve as useful for any of you guys who may possess a Che Guevara print t-shirt!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this presentation I aim to describe the reason as to why Che Guevara is viewed as a 21st century commodity of a 20th century myth and how this came about.

What exactly is a commodity? According to Merriam-Webster it is 'an economic good or one that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a market.'

Che Guevara's image has been exploited, turned upside down and adapted to favour its market. This exposure though, has merely been present in foreign countries, especially in the Americas, until very recently. Why is this?

Well, the name Che Guevara conjures up various debates in Argentina and had been enlisted under a sort of taboo some might say.

Ernesto Guevara passed away in 1967 and it was in the 70s that revolutionary groups formed in Argentina, the most famous of which were the Montoneros. They hoped that the returning Peron from exile would turn their fatherland into a more socialist state. The group wasn't successful and was effectively extinct by 1977. The Ezeiza massacre in 1973 was a stepping stone, not only to this, but also to the Dirty War that killed many from 1976 until 1983. These socialist attitudes adopted by the Montoneros, formed by young protesting students, reminded some of Guevarist theories and due to its connection with the Dirty War, isn't really a topic Argentines like to discuss.

Soon after 1983, Argentina experienced two economic crises at the end of the 80s and 90s and only recently has the country been able to enjoy both political and economic stability. In other words this is the first time since Che Guevara died that Argentina has been absent of any profound unrest.

This is important when it becomes apparent The Motorcycle Diaries was first published in 1994 and released a year later in English. This gave the opportunity for foreign insight to rejuvenate and tinker with the image of Che Guevara. The most detailed of Che Guevara biographies was published in 1997 by Jon Lee Anderson. He was portrayed as a young man, learning about himself and wanting to make a difference. The film ‘Diarios de Motocicleta’ attracted so much publicity that the book was re-released aimed directly at those who went to see the film. From this, the iconic and mythical Che Guevara image was formed – subsequent publishing of Che Guevara's works were then released such as his ‘Bolivian Diaries’ (transcribed and revised by his widow, Aleida) and ‘Travelling with Che Guevara’ by Alberto Granado.

This caused a commercial craze that meant we were starting to see Che's face on all sorts of memorabilia and artefacts, like the t-shirt on Prince Harry and the swimsuit on supermodel Gisele. Nonetheless his mythical figure not only created a literary windfall but also a political one.

Evo Morales was the first indigenous president to be elected in Bolivia a year ago. On Che Guevara's 40th anniversary he stated,

"We are humanists and followers of the example of Guevara,”

although he highlights that times have changed and that his idea of social change won't follow the same route of bullets like Che did – example being the operative word. This sentiment was highlighted by Hugo Chavez, the notorious Venezuelan leader. Even the Sandinista government showed allegiance to Guevara once they won the 2006 elections in Nicaragua, donning Che Guevara shirts at their victory parade.

And most recently people are drawing parallels with the effect this political change in Nicaragua and Bolivia has had on the violence-ridden nation, Guatemala. Last month Alvaro Colom was elected the new centre-left president of Guatemala, the first 'left leaning' president they have had since 1954, when Jacobo Arbenz' government was overthrown by a CIA coup which later led to thirty six years of civil war. There is a hint of irony about this because its widely believed Colom’s appointment was catalysed after recent leftist success around Latin America and thus it has been the adapted image of Che and his political dogma that has come to save Guatemala 53 years after since going there initially to learn about Arbenz' own social reforms.

For the entire appraisal Che has received, there have been those that are jumping on the bandwagon to connote anti - Che sentiments. Books such as Cuban migrant Humberto Fontova's, Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him’ and ‘Che Guevara Myth and the Future of Liberty’ by Alvaro Vargas Llosa, son of famous Peruvian author, Mario Vargas Llosa focus in on his racist slurs such as in the Motorcycle Diaries:

Los negros, los mismos magníficos ejemplares de la raza africana que
han mantenido su pureza racial gracias al poco apego que le tienen al
baño, han visto invadidos sus reales por un nuevo ejemplar de esclavo…el
negro indolente y soñador, se gasta sus pesitos en cualquier frivolidad o
en ‘pagar unos palos’, el europeo tiene una tradición de trabajo y de
ahorro … (p.182)

Even though they ridicule the iconic status that Che holds within society, I think people have come to accept the sweet with the sour as he was a revolutionary, like Evo Morales has. Although these books undermine Che Guevara, they do serve to expand the ever increasing mania surrounding him and give two sides to the story consequently acting as another route of Che-orientated commercialism.

When relating all this back to Argentina, I believe the taboo that once surrounded Ernesto Guevara has been lifted. This can be seen in the inauguration in 2001 of the country’s first Che museum, in Alta Gracia, Cordoba where he grew up. His name is also popping up in Argentine media again, especially in sport. Important figures like Diego Maradona who has a tattoo of him on his arm,

"Amo Argentina, que nadie se olvide que yo amo al Che (Guevara), amo a (el presidente de Cuba) Fidel (Castro), pero soy argentino", dijo Maradona. BBC Mundo, De Todo Un Poco, Sábado, 1 de mayo de 2004, Intervista con canal televisivo Telefé 24

It was in effect, because of Argentina’s home turmoil that Che was a silent figure till the 90s and the appropriated image others have created have now have boomeranged back into Argentina via the West. Only time will tell how long this remodelled image of Guevara will last in Argentina. As the second generation develops, maybe the success of this renovated 21st century perception of Che around the world will sway them to focus on the good rather than the bad and use Guevara’s iconic status to their benefit, as others have.

Ernesto Guevara in the eyes of Steven Soderbergh and Benicio Del Toro

A Mr. 'Che' Guevara seems to be the talk of the town at the moment. Che part 1 was just released in the UK although it hasn't risen to the top of the box office charts as may have been expected. Simon Mayo and Mark Kermode's BBC Radio 5 Live show talked about it for about five seconds in their latest podcast which all came as a bit of a surprise. Elsewhere though it has done well, Benicio Del Toro already winner of the best actor award at Cannes.

Bearing in mind this is Che: Part 1 we see elements of his earlier life before the Cuban Revolution and before he matures into a real revolutionary. Soderbergh films it beautifully and at times humourously. Del Toro encapsulates what most who have studied/read/watched Che Guevara imagine to be the essence of the Argentine - physically but also in diction. There was no fairytale script in this film like in 'Motorcycle Diaries' although contrasting the films is useful and probably justified since we would be analysing two disparate chapters in his life. Che: Part 1 was no epic take on Guevara, it served to clarify what many misinterpret about his life and his ideologies. In my opinion, there was no obvious political undertone apart from an overt hatred, on the protagonists’ part, to an imperialistic United States. We were repeatedly reminded of this in cross scenes in black and white, imitating Guevara's speeches in the UN embassy. There isn't much to criticise really, it came across as an honest representation of the early revolutionary.

Nonetheless, it was interesting that the film emulated Fidel's first meeting with Che Guevara in 55' if i remember correctly but failed to explain how Che got there, in Mexico City. From Motorcycle Diaries to Che: Part 1 - 1952 -1955 there is a three-year gap that is ignored. Is your ordinary Joe supposed to think that Guevara went to a leprosy "colony" (as described in the film), visits Peru and sees the damage caused by the Spanish conquistadores on the Incas and then suddenly ends up in Mexico City in the presence of influential progressive Cubans? And whatever happened to Alberto?!

To fill this void, it would make sense to mention Guatemala and the Moncada barrack attacks. In '53 Guevara was in Costa Rica, working as a doctor and while he was there he met survivors of the Moncada attacks. The attacks were led by Fidel Castro and his amigos, revolting against the military coup of the Fulgencio Batista camp. From there he moved onto nearby Guatemala, intrigued by the peaceful transition from military junta to democratic elections, initially led by Juan José Arévalo's government between '45 to 51' and then continued on by socialist Jacobo Arbenz when Guevara entered the country. However it was when Arbenz was in power that this democratic movement came to an extreme halt with a military coup led by Colonel Castillo Armas and backed by the CIA. In short the latter were upset about agrarian reforms and having to pay taxes (American companies like United Fruit Company) owned vast amounts of land in Central America.

As a result they supported a military turn around in Guatemala and Arbenz resigned. The nature of this event, buoyed by Guevara's keen literary interest in the political theories behind Marxism and the nurturing of a friendship with another Moncada survivor (named Nico Lopez), Guevara began to get a feel for politics in Latin America and US common intervention. These events accompanied with his own ideas and those that surrounded him meant when he followed on to Mexico City, the character portrayed in the film - coy more than naive- and politically-astute, begins to make more sense.

I imagine the second film will have tested the producers a lot more than the first, primarily because a lot less has been documented on Guevara's later years. Most of which that has been published stems from Ocean Press Publishing Press - an Australian publishing press that agreed to take on the 'Che Guevara Publishing Project' which is a collaboration with the 'Che Guevara Studies Centre in Havana' headed by widow Aleida Guevara and most probably funded by the Castro regime. Therefore the legitimacy of what is published remains skeptical.

Finally, it comes as little of a shock that Jon Lee Anderson was the chief consultant for the first film: he is the author of the most complete book on Guevara, entitled 'Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life.' For those of you who are just interested in learning a tad more about Guevara and don't want to indulge in such a detailed book then I personally recommend 'Che Guevara and the Cuban Revolution' written by Mike Gonzalez. It is a wonderfully clear and concise book, less than 200 pages and one of the best biographies I have read on the man we all call Che.

Thoughts on the film?