Industrial fishing is carried out mainly by multinational companies, who benefit from concessions given by the Ecuadorian government, and by national investment groups. However, there is a large price to pay for this progress. Fishermen work hard in difficult and sometimes dangerous conditions, all year round. The immigrant workforce has driven down the cost of labour and increased working hours;  as in every rapidly developing community, this has made the cost of basic living rise dramatically.

The majority of fishermen still work on small fibreglass or wooden boats, leave at 4 pm, rarely return before 7 am, and earn an average of around $20 a day. However, most families now have enough money for basic healthcare and school books, and, although no statistics have been compiled, most people agree that children begin to start to work notably later – at 15-16 rather than 10-11 years old.

This burgeoning development could not be further from the reality of life in any of several hundred undeveloped subsistence fishing communities stretching down the southern coast of the country. More than 12,000 families are dependent on the micro-fishing industry, still using traditional onshore netting and trapping techniques, and fishing from small motorboats and canoes. In the tiny settlement of Estero de Platano, only a few hours north of Manta, life has changed little in the last 50 years. Geographical and economic isolation has presented a barrier to the development witnessed in other parts of the country.

The men of the village fish for pipas del mar from 5 am until 9 am; the fish make $3 to $5 each when sold. The fishermen’s lives are slow and quiet, and the rest of the day is spent netting food, cultivating fruit and cocoa in the forest, talking, playing cards and staring out to sea, waiting for the tide to change. Estero de Platano has not fallen victim to any social difficulties, like alcoholism, which have had such a damaging effect on similar communities.

However, the future holds an increasingly bleak prospect for the younger generation. The inevitable northwards creep of tourist-related development from Manta, coupled with the increase in passing traffic, is bringing young people into contact with an ever increasing number of things they cannot afford, yet desperately want – from mobile phones and CDs to antibiotics and shampoo. Efforts to ease the path of development and boost the local economy by national NGOs have been largely unsuccessful; all have now left, disheartened by lack of enthusiasm and progress.

That’s not surprising. In the short term, all the development efforts have meant a great deal of work for less money, and no guarantee of success. Add to this the fact that many of the inhabitants, particularly the women, have rarely, if ever, journeyed even as far as 30 km down the coast to the nearest town, and do not really understand what the NGOs intended to achieve. They live as their parents and grandparents lived, and have no real engagement with or exposure to the process of social change. Change, indeed, has usually meant for the worse – more noisy and messy traffic, more pollution in the sea, more poaching. It seems likely that most of the older generation will be able to live out their lives without any alteration to traditional existence. What the future holds for the youngest is anybody’s guess.

The strike, which ended this month, came in the wake of a series of difficult periods in the Chinese-Zambian relationship. Two years ago, more than 40 miners were killed in a blast in a Chinese-owned explosives factory at Chambishi, blamed on lax regulations. A year later, the giant 30 year-old Mulungushi textile mill, originally funded by Beijing, was forced to close after a flood of cheaper Chinese goods effectively strangled its business.

Many are calling for ‘equilibrilisation’. The most prominent case of African ‘push-back’, as the phenomenon is known among Africa and China experts, is in South Africa. Although a vocal advocate of a Sino-African partnership, partly as a counterbalance to the US-dominated global architecture, South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki has delivered the most poignant warning yet of the potential dangers of the new relationship. In late 2006, he told the South African Students Congress that African states ran the risk of getting stuck “in an unequal relationship” with Beijing, such as had developed between Africa and the former colonial powers.

This warning came as the South African government put the finishing touches to a deal on quotas for Chinese textiles, aimed at propping up the struggling local garment industry. Analysts do not believe the quotas have had much effect, but symbolically they represented South Africa drawing a line in the sand, sending a powerful signal of assertiveness.

China was recently hailed by The Economist as the ‘New Colonialist’, a title and a sentiment certain Chinese Officials clearly resent, given the rebuttal found in the People’s Daily, which, like all other Chinese media, is State controlled. According to the People’s Daily, “some Western media have attempted to discredit Sino-African relations by propagating their African version of the ‘China threat theory’.” There is a saying in Namibia that, as the sun rises in the east, so do all good things come from the east. On a recent trip to Namibia, I was surprised to find just how far China’s influence had extended.

Namibia is a vast country, the size of France and Germany put together; with a tiny population of 1.4 million. Although you are unlikely to see many clear signs of Chinese culture, the indirect impact of Chinese investment is evident. China has undeniably boosted the Namibian economy, with its demand for raw materials; it has also created an abundance of well paid jobs. For better or worse, many Namibians are leaving behind their traditional lives and values to work in the mines and factories that have sprung up to meet China’s demand for natural resources. In most of Africa, the structure of employment is such that, in industry, the demand is mostly for male workers. Consequently, men tend to migrate alone, leaving their wives and families behind, at least initially.

This has shaped the perception of the sex roles, which tend to associate women almost exclusively with the task of housekeeper and mother. There is a lack of data about the involvement of women in the migratory process, owing to the numerical preponderance of males in the migratory streams and the ‘invisibility’ of women who, as wives, merely accompany or join migrant males.

The propensity to migrate correlates closely with educational attainment. Migrants are generally younger and better educated than the rest of the population in their place of origin. Migration itself is linked to the pursuit of formal and informal education in the cities, where most post-primary institutions and apprenticeship opportunities are concentrated. Since most wage employment is found in cities, rural youths who invest heavily in education must, out of necessity, invest also in migration, if their education is to pay off.

China repays its debt with large injections of investment into Namibia’s infrastructure and her people. The Chinese Embassy in Windhoek offers numerous scholarships for further education. On a visit to the Namib-Rand reserve, I met a guide who was about to begin training as a pilot on a scholarship from the Chinese Embassy. He told me that they were offering a large number of scholarships like his to pursue higher education.

Over the last 30 years, China itself has witnessed one of the largest cases of rural-urban migration in history, and the situation is still escalating. There are 103 million urban migrants in Chinese cities but, by 2025, there will be 243 million; the total urban population of China will be nearly a billion. More than 40% of China’s urban population will be migrant within two decades, putting huge pressures on the ability of local governments to provide adequate services for their urban dwellers, according to a study by the Mckinsey Global Institute. It seems plausible that this process may, to a certain extent, be due to China’s labour shortage which is feeding greater import dependence. Likewise, Sub-Saharan Africa has the world’s highest rate of rural-urban migration. This is driven, in part, by greater employment opportunities instigated by the building of new factories – most of which are Chinese investments. People are moving to the cities and often there is nowhere for them to live; townships continue to expand and for a large proportion of the poor in urban Africa living condition are deteriorating, as the strain on resources increases. Furthermore, the improvements in infrastructure cannot keep up with the pace of population growth in urban areas.

But China also has its supporters. Abdoulaye Wade, Senegal’s president, recently defended China’s growing economic role in Africa in an article in the Financial Times, writing that “China’s approach is simply better adapted than the slow and sometimes patronising post-colonial approach of European investors, donor organisations and non-governmental organisations.” He observed that the Chinese model for stimulating rapid economic development has much to teach, not only Africa, but also Europe. Through direct aid, credit lines and reasonable contracts, China has helped African nations complete infrastructure projects in record time- bridges, roads, schools, hospitals, dams, legislative buildings, stadiums and airports. The President concluded that “In many nations, including Senegal, improvements in infrastructure have played important roles in stimulating economic growth.”

China has also been a much needed friend to Robert Mugabe. With the possibility of change in the air, Chinese companies have been actively exploring opportunities in Zimbabwe, which boasts rich deposits of gold, uranium, platinum and diamonds. Chinese Deputy Commerce Minister, Gao Hucheng, who was in Harare last month on a trade mission, said Beijing had invested $1.6 billion in Zimbabwe in 2007, although analysts say Chinese investment has yet to take off. The Chinese Government seemed to ignore the possible moral objections to supporting Mugabe. China’s role in Darfur has also been heavily criticised.

China may appear as confident and ambitious as ever. However, in the current economic climate even the Chinese government admitted its outlook for 2008 is grim. The financial crisis which has brought several banks in the West to the brink of bankruptcy- Bear-Stearns, Northern Rock, and several of the state owned banks in Germany- have led some commentators to view this as a seismic shift in the global economy. If they are right, who will be the winner and the losers in the new order?

In October 2007, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China took a stake of approximately 20% in Standard Bank, a South African bank with total assets of US$119 billion, for just US$5.5 billion. China is investing throughout the developing world, but most notably in Sub-Saharan Africa, not only mining its resources, but also taking strategic stakes in its businesses. When the world economy emerges from the present downturn, China will be propelled further forward; that is, if its government doesn’t make too many mistakes. But will the African nations, with which China is forming such strong ties, move forward with China?

According to Open Democracy, an internet-based forum for democratic debate, Wen Jiabao, the Premier of China, has said he is the most worried man in the world. Consumer spending in China is low, representing only 36% of the country’s GDP, yet inflation is higher than ever. There is a labour shortage in the manufacturing sector, and market forces are causing wages to rise. Although a large middle class has been emerging, many workers still suffer from poor living conditions, and there is a serious power shortage. Then there is Tibet.

The Beijing Olympics have been orchestrated by the Chinese government to mark China’s emergence as a superpower. As China tries to deal with the major economic, environmental, social and cultural issues that confront it at home, the cultural impact of its investment in Sub-Saharan Africa may not be high on its list of priorities. But for Africa, the stakes are high: undoubtedly, Chinese investment has brought significant economic benefits, but the loss of traditional values and social disintegration are a high price to pay.

The desperate search for the next and best story has led to countless violations of privacy, as well as scores of incidents, where unconfirmed suspicions have been blown‐up into stories that are taken to be as good as factual. Relatively insignificant issues have been irresponsibly exaggerated into massive front‐page controversies. Truly significant global issues have been abandoned for news stories designed to shock shamelessly. Quentin Peel, International Affairs Editor at the Financial Times, feels strongly that “sometimes we get obsessed by very small and irrelevant stories, when there are really big international stories that I think people would be interested in if they [the media] showed how relevant it is to us.”

Not one to understate the importance of his profession, Peel shares politicians’ concerns regarding the government’s relationship with the media: “I think we do have a responsibility way beyond what we think we recognise, and I feel that the danger in this country is that the Parliamentary debate has moved into the media… no one’s turning‐up for Parliamentary debates, but they’re debating everything on Newsnight, or the Today Programme.”

As Peel puts it, “We as journalists have allowed ourselves to be used and the spin doctors to use us, and we despise ourselves for allowing ourselves to be used.” He notes an often‐used trick that guarantees that the media play the government’s tune. “It’s become a very sophisticated exercise of the ‘selective leak,’ giving to only a favoured few journalists… and then what happens is you think ‘well, I must write something about it because nobody else has got it,’ and the fact that it’s totally anodyne rubbish or a rather bad idea… you’re unlikely to be as critical of it if you’ve got it before everybody else.” As he acknowledges, this covert action is not isolated to the British government. I asked Mr Peel whether he had been subject to this trickery from anyone else: “Take the European Commission, they might do the same, you know… ‘Here’s an exclusive speech by the President of the Commission, you know’ … it’s quite a long time since I’ve been had by that. I was probably had when I was reporting on Brussels in the 1980s, but the whole spin machine was not quite as aggressive then as it is now. But I do think there’s fault on both sides.” For time‐pressed journalists who need their big scoop quickly, spin doctors can provide perfect front‐page fodder that, thanks to the direction of the spin they put on a story, will emphasise good news and inevitably suppress the bad.
The buzz of the frantic 24‐hour media, with many networks vying for punters’ precious time, has also led much of journalism to pursue ever more scintillating stories – not because they are important, but because of how controversial or frightening they may be. Take the intense press coverage of the McCann family’s ordeal. “The Obsession with the McCanns is completely insane and has become, I would have thought, incredibly boring for the readers and viewers… Undoubtedly it was a subject of conversation, but to the extent that the media covered it? – I just feel that part of the problem is that people invested in sending their journalists to Portugal, then they had to justify the expense by using their copy.”

Murdoch and the Media: “Poisonous”

No look at the state of the world media would be complete without considering the greatest and arguably the most infamous of media moguls, Rupert Murdoch. With over 53,000 employees worldwide, his News International Corporation spans divisions of TV, newspapers, radio, websites as well as books and other media. Mr Murdoch has such influence that it is widely believed that he uses it to support his own interests. Mr Murdoch can slant the political coverage of his news media – using The Sun, the News of the World and The Times newspapers, as well as Sky News TV in the UK, and The New York Post and Fox News, together with his recent acquisition, The Wall Street Journal in the US – in the direction of a particular political party or candidate. Consider the run‐up to the Iraq War in 2003; all of his more than 175 newspapers were in favour of the war. Now, Murdoch’s acquisition of The Wall Street Journal will mean that he will have yet more influence in the 2008 US Presidential race.

Mr Peel regards Murdoch as “Poisonous… I think that the Murdoch Empire is far too dominant in certain markets – it’s far too dominant in the British market – and I’m very worried about Murdoch’s takeover of the Wall Street Journal, which depends fundamentally on being above any hint of commercial profit from any of its reporting. Now one of the most insidious aspects of the Murdoch Empire is the way he uses his Newspapers to promote his television and his television to promote his newspapers. If the Wall Street Journal were dragged down that path, it would be devastating for its reputation as an objective newspaper.”
In a world where it is considered wrong for a government to control the media, it is arguably even worse to allow a third party to have such a significant influence on the ‘news’ that people read. It is no surprise, then, that Simon Wilson, the BBC Middle East Bureau editor until just recently, has noted in his blog that some Americans now prefer to consult the BBC for news. That said, despite his opinion regarding the Murdoch Empire, Peel argues the entire US media is at fault, “[in the period before the past 18 months] The US media was cowed by 9/11 into an absurdly patriotic silence. Then, I think, the BBC was very important in being a voice that Americans tuned to to find out what was really happening, because their own media wasn’t giving it to them.”

The BBC: “Scared of its Own Shadow?”

“The BBC is an extraordinary invention which has been successful, and I think it would be an absolute tragedy if it were destroyed. At the same time, I do think the BBC has become a rather monstrous bureaucracy… if you work inside it you find it is desperately bureaucratic.”

It is natural that we consider the BBC separately, given that it does not rely primarily on ratings to survive, and that it is a non‐profit, government‐sponsored but not government‐controlled organisation. But, like the rest of the media, there have been major shortcomings in the BBC’s editorial standards. Last year, the Corporation was to broadcast a full day of programming, themed Planet Relief, intended to highlight issues of climate change; only at late notice was it abandoned due to editorial concern that it was trying to influence opinion on the issue. Veteran anchor Anna Ford resigned from the BBC out of concern that the organisation was becoming increasingly bureaucratic; given their 228‐page “editorial guidelines”, set out in 2005, this ‘protest resignation’ seems justified. Peel agrees: “The problem with the BBC is that it’s an insane bureaucracy, and they do everything over the top, I mean that [228‐pages of ‘editorial guidelines’] is just bloody silly.” He likes the idea of a ‘journalist’s rule book’, though – “I think we should have a book of rules, but not 228‐pages – perhaps 20 pages, maximum.”

But things are not as bleak as they may seem; the BBC is politically neutral and, particularly since the Gilligan‐Kelly affair in 2003, has gone to extraordinary lengths to verify its sources. Moreover, anyone who has seen or heard a politician being interviewed by the likes of Jeremy Paxman or John Humphreys will agree that the BBC goes beyond simply accepting the announcements of politicians; they delve into the details. Moreover, in his 15th January speech, BBC Director‐General Mark Thompson put forward his plans for the BBC to develop the bonds of trust and confidence between it, public authorities and the general public of Britain. The measures he aims to implement intend to “make output which explores ideas about policy and policy choices, rather than simply react to what’s been said, and also try harder to expose serious spin.” If this happens, then moving the Parliamentary debate from the House of Commons and into the news studios may actually be a good thing. It may, at least, save us from having to endure the childish and self‐demeaning political bickering of Prime Minister’s Questions, if ever we want to hear from the government about what they are really doing.

Given the problems we have seen escalate in today’s journalism – a lack of time and attention to important issues, ridiculous exaggeration of smaller ones, disproportionate focus on “personal interest” issues, political bias – Mr Thompson’s pronouncements are long overdue. His measures put the BBC forward as a way of dealing with these problems. The BBC has no private shareholders to satisfy, and so does not need to participate in senseless sensationalism in order to bump‐up ratings and profits. Instead, as a public service, it can, should, and often does look thoroughly at much of the government’s rhetoric. It is good that the plans intend to broaden the scope of this and try to repair some of the problems present. As Thompson put it himself: “… I believe it’s important that someone makes the first move, and that no one is better placed to do that than the BBC.” His support of the “aggressive” nature of some of the BBC’s political interviews is all the more reassuring.

Mr Peel is concerned that regulation of some shape or form may be unavoidable, however: “If we don’t put our house in order, I think we will inevitably face regulation.” He regards the issues of violations of privacy as pivotal, particularly in terms of the recent case of Prince Harry going to fight in Afghanistan. “… we are trampling over questions of privacy, which is why I think the Prince Harry issue is very interesting and, in a way, very important. The papers recognised that they had made his life, and national security, actually impossible.” He discusses the media‐blackout agreement that was made regarding Prince Harry’s deployment. “It is a precedent, and I think it’s a precedent that we may see more of. But it’s one the newspapers will have to take very difficult decisions about…”.

Peel suggests a “Hippocratic oath for journalists, you know… ‘thou shalt not invent things’.” Continuing the analogy, I ask whether a GMC‐esque institution for journalists is not out of the question. “We’ve got the Press Complaints Commission, it’s getting a bit more serious, but I think we have to go further… I think we have to have some basic rules… and if they don’t want to abide by those rules, then they don’t sign‐up, and run the Daily Star, or whatever it may be.” So, it seems Mr Peel is all for internal regulation, but certainly not external. Mark Thompson also rejects tougher outside regulation of the press – it is obvious why this is. A look at the effects of media censorship in other countries is ample evidence to show that government‐imposed restraint of the press would open the doors to manipulation.

In its current state of maturity, the British media faces a grave threat – that of itself. One might even say that the free media is at risk of destroying itself, but that might be a tad sensational.