The most important idea that is currently in my mind which I think if not worked upon and fertilized would be forgotten and the brilliant idea will die even without reaching its infancy. One of the most important idea I’ve been thinking around since past week is about a TV channel.  Yes, a TV channel which will be helpful in representing a whole world. I name is “Diversity Channel”. Here what I mean about representing a whole world is that A TV which represents the culture of the whole world. The idea is to establish a global TV channel like BBC and CNN with worldwide broadcasting capability but it would not be a news channel in the market. It would be a channel which will telecast the program from all around the world.            

The idea is so broad that a TV channel couldn’t fulfill the idea. The idea is to establish the TV channel which would telecast the programming from around the world. It would telecast the programs from different parts of the world with different language, culture and tradition. But there is a problem. If we try to telecast different types of programs like documentary, TV serials, big movies form different parts of the world, and then the single TV channel would also be inadequate. Variety of programs from different countries with different tradition and culture in a single TV channel would make the things haphazard. So the best idea would be to make a TV channel telecast only one genre of the program either it be TV serials or documentaries. But my interest is on TV serials so I would focus on TV serials only.              

Now lets state the idea in a sentence,” A global television channel that telecasts the TV serials from different countries of the world.” There are 24 hours in a day and in every hour a TV serial form different countries of the world will be telecasted, most probably on the basis of country. The TV serials will be developed locally in the respective country in the local language. But since the television will be broad casted all over the world, each TV serial must contain subtitles in English language so that people from all over the world could understand the TV serials.            

The TV channel would generate the revenue by selling certain amount of its time for advertisement and the advertisement would also come from all around the world. More specifically, the advertisement relating to the welfare of the respective country like tourism related advertisement would be broad casted before the telecast of serial of the respective country. The channel would generate the revenue in this manner. Hence a profitable global TV channel will be established and nurtured.   

First of all it is very necessary to understand if developing countries can afford $100 laptops. The per capita income of Bangladesh, one of the poorest and developing countries and where OLPC is willing to sell its laptop is 300$ i.e. 20557 TAKA. That means poor people of Bangladesh can’t buy this so-called $100 laptop. OLPC is saying like it will be selling these laptops to the government of the poor countries and they will have to distribute laptops to their poor children. Have they gone out of mind to sell this $100 laptop which may seem very cheap here in USA and other developed countries but really expensive for underdeveloped and developing countries? I don’t think government of these countries who even don’t have money to provide basic needs of its people have ability to buy this so-called $100 laptop. And also who cares about this laptop if they don’t have anything to eat and wear. I don’t believe that educational need comes before the basic need like food, shelter and clothes. It is foolish to think that starving people of Somalia and Sudan will start using this so-called $100 laptop. In the rural part of my country itself, many children leave school in an early age to work in field because they will not have anything to eat if they don’t work in field. This is the reason why Indian rejected OLPC project. Indian Education Secretary Sudeep Baneerjee said, “We cannot visualize a situation for decades when we can go beyond the pilot stage. We need classrooms and teachers more urgently than fancy tools.” He further added,” If money were available it would be better spent on existing education plans.” (Oates). Also, OLPC had to come up with the scheme like “Give One and Get One”. Under this scheme OLPC sold two laptops to rich people of developed countries for $399. One is sent to the buyer and the other is sent to an underprivileged child.(Hamm) This is because poor countries can’t afford to buy this so-called $100 laptop.

Let’s assume that government of poor countries anyhow will buy these laptops for their poor children. It will be their first time investment. They will spend optimum of their nominal budget for buying these laptops. It’s ok that they spend money for this noble cause. But for how long will these laptops operate smoothly and without problems? It’s possible to make first time investment anyhow but it’s more costly to maintain this laptop and who will pay for that? Negroponte, during his interview with an argentinian television, Dominio Digital Television said that the average life span of the laptop is 5 years and that of the components inside is 1 year. That means the life span of laptop is 1 year itself. So the investment of $100 is only for 1 year. And there are more expenses afterwards for maintenance. Anyone can see in these poor countries that once some infrastructures like road, building, water supply etc. are built with the help of some donor, there’s no one to care about that. Government is responsible for this but ironically these governments don’t have enough money to maintain it. Hospitals, roads, schools etc. are constructed once but after two or three years it’s common to see it ruining because of lack of care and management. So I don’t believe that these governments have enough financial capacity to repair these laptops after some time if they get into problems. Thus, it is more important that OLPC thinks towards building up some mechanism to increase the life span of the laptop and repair the laptop in more economical way in future.

What about language problem? Are they going to build these laptops for English speaking children only? I don’t think so. Most of the developing countries children even don’t understand English, then how are they going to use this laptop? Most of the underprivileged children of the underdeveloped and developing nations go to schools where they are taught in local language rather than English and more priority is given to those languages as its convenient to learn and gain knowledge in the language that are known in prior. So it’s obvious that they are not good in English. The majority of them even don’t understand English. Then how are they supposed to learn the content from this $100 laptop which obviously will be in English. Let’s give an example from Nepal itself. There are two categories of schools of Nepal. One that is established and operated by government and the other one which is established an operated by private sector. In government schools the medium of teaching is Nepali language whereas in private schools more priority is given to English language. And $100 is supposed for government schools children as they are poor and underprivileged than the children studying in private schools. So it’s now crystal clear about the unfeasibility of OLPC project. I am sure that OLPC people are well aware of this problem and are trying their best to overcome this problem. I heard that they are thinking to localize the software for this Laptop that means all the necessary applications will be developed in customize manner. Again the problem is who is going to fund for this. Thus what we can see is that $100 is not actually $100. We are well aware that software development cost is often more greater than hardware development and they are just talking about hardware. So what can be the real cost of this laptop after we add software cost as well, may be $200 or $300 or even more.

Technology is not education but it’s an only means for providing education. And what I believe is that the means for providing education should be as affordable, cheap and accessible as possible. If these OLPC really wants to do contribute for the education of these poor children from poor community, it’s not necessary to develop this kind of expensive electronic gadget which costs billions of dollars in research and development itself. But help them by providing pencils, notebooks and textbooks which are far cheaper than $100 laptop. It’s the responsibility and duty of the technocrat like Negroponte to think about use of technology in education but it’s also their duty to make the technology affordable, accessible and efficient for general use.

So, does this mean $100 laptop is worthless and the project should be dissolved? Well….it depends. It is true that every technology brings promises at the beginning. Then it goes through lots of brainstorming, debate and transition and finally the real output of that technology is seen. Who believed that the primitive abacus would take the shape of today’s powerful computer? So, I don’t say $100 laptop is completely worthless. In the current situation it’s worthless. But if the cost of the laptop could be decreased and modified so that it will be easily accessible to the people who needs it and won’t be burden at all, I am sure it will really play a magic role to provide education for these poor children. I firmly believe that if the problem I specified above in this paper is addressed, OLPC is going to meet the goal.

In conclusion, One Laptop per Child Project is not as it seems to be. It seems cheap but not for them who really need it. It seems $100 but there’s lots of hidden cost like software cost, maintenance cost, distribution cost as well. Software should be developed in local languages and the content of the internet and other educational resources should be localized in order to make it accessible to these poor children. Poor countries are not in the condition to buy it on their own. They have to bring in money either as loan or grant through some INGOs (International Non Governmental Organization), international banks like World Bank, International Bank etc. And this is going to do nothing but just increase the national debt of these countries. But every problem gives rise to new ways of thinking and solutions. Therefore, though it seems worthless and unfeasible right now. I hope OLPC, with the support of its good wishers, will find right way and solution to make $100 laptop feasible and worthy for every poor children of this world.

Works Cited

Biever, Celeste. “Technology guru seeks $100 laptop for world’s poor .”.New Scientist. 02 Dec 2005. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost, Owens Lib., Maryville, MO. 11 Dec 2007 http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=16178000&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Hamm, Steve. “Give a Laptop and Get One.” Business Week Online. 25 Sep 2007. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Owens Lib., Maryville, MO. 11 Dec 2007 http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=16178000&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Oates, John. “India rejects One Laptop Per Child.” The Register. 26 Jul 2006. 11 Dec 2007 <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/26/india_says_no_to_olpc/>.

Aalok Das Shrestha’s Profile

Create Your Badge

The economic sanctions, though intended for some political interest, not only affect the political environment of the target country but also create several hardships on its citizens. As a simple example, India imposed economic sanctions on Nepal during 1989 and 1990 only because Nepal contracted to buy some arms from China for its internal security. Economic sanctions on Nepal created discomfort to common Nepalese people and most importantly weakened the countries economy. Nepal was not able to do international business as it is a landlocked country and doesn’t have easy access to the sea. Exports of goods couldn’t happen due to which local industries were closed down dismantling the economy of the country. I still remember the days when I used to stay at the back of my father’s motorbike and wait in queue for whole day for a liter of kerosene and petrol that was kept in stock by some gas-station. Industries were closed down as no raw materials could be imported due to closure of borders which resulted in an increase in unemployment creating several hardships to civilians. I had one of my family members working in a garment factory. But when India sanctioned Nepal, he lost his job as no raw material could be imported due to which he had no money to feed his children properly and also couldn’t afford for the education of his children. Thus, economic sanction not only has effects in political level but its repercussions are far more adverse for the people, which often doesn’t come to light as it should be. Some critics argue that the sanctions were worthy from the perspective of safety of democracy of Nepal and eventually for the safety of Indian democracy as well from strong communist country like China. But it seems comical that one of the biggest democratic countries of the world took undemocratic steps in the name of saving democracy. It was not righteous and democratic job to lock up a sovereign country in the name of democracy.

It has been proved from the past that economic sanctions negatively affect the health of citizens of the target country. Physicians who have traveled to nations affected by economic sanctions reported that suffering is caused by the lack of medical supplies or other basic health-related resources. For example, the economic sanction imposed by the United Nations in a country excluded food and medical supplies, the availability of basic medications decreased by 50% because the raw materials needed to produce them could not be imported. As a result, rates of typhus, measles and tuberculosis were reported to have increased. In August 1990, when the Security Council imposed economic sanctions on Iraq, the sanctions caused suffering and death in Iraq, especially to children. The maternal mortality rate increased from 50/100.000 live births in 1989 to 117/100.000 in 1997 while the infant mortality rate rose from 64/1.000 births in 1990 to 129/1.000 in 1995. The majority of the population of young children was affected by malnutrition. So looking at these facts, the quote “Economic sanction is the weapon of mass destruction” cited by Jay Gordon of Social Science Research Council proves to be true.  President Woodrow Wilson had quoted “A nation that is boycotted is a nation that is in sight of surrender. Apply this economic, peaceful, silent, deadly remedy and there will be no need for force. It does not cost a life outside the nation boycotted, but it brings a pressure upon the nation which, in my judgment, no modern nation could resist.” It may be true in his time but he would never have made this comment if he had looked at the data specified above.

Economic sanctions seriously affect the economy of the country which is very difficult to recover afterwards as it jeopardizes the overall economic infrastructure of the target country that has been built through a long period of time. The target countries of economic sanctions suffer devastating trade, economic and social consequences. The economic infrastructure developed after long period of economic exercises can be broken down in an instant because of economic sanction.  For example before 1990, Iraq had invested in infrastructure and in ‘human resources development’ to create ‘an efficient health system that was considered one of the best in the Middle-East Region’ but because of the economic sanctions laid to it over the past decade, the health sector, which is also a foundation of the economy of the country, has been devastated. The economic sanctions caused over $200bn worth of damage to the infrastructure and civilian economic assets as cited in “The Ecologist”.

It is not that economic sanctions affect the target country only but recent studies and research has revealed that it has adverse effects on the economy of the imposer as well thus proving that economic sanctions are not as effective as they seem to be. For example, Kimberly Ann Elliott of The Peterson Institute in his paper “Evidence on the Costs and Benefits of Economic Sanctions” quotes , ”Trade sanctions deprive the United States of the gains from trade and frequently penalize exporting firms that are among the most sophisticated and productive in the US economy. As American sanctions have expanded and proliferated over the past 20 years, they have also led to increasing tensions between the Unites States and its allies and trading partners around the world costing the United States $15 billion to $19 billion in forgone merchandise exports to 26 target countries in 1995, eliminated more than 200,000 jobs in relatively high-wage export sectors, and caused American workers to lose nearly $1 billion in wages.”. Therefore, economic sanctions not only makes the people of target country suffer but of imposer as well.

Though the loss caused by economic sanctions in United States is negligible in comparison to its vast GDP of 13 Trillion dollar i.e. 0.15 % of whole US economy, we can’t undermine the trouble and hardship faced by people. It may seem nothing in front of US economy but for average working class a job is everything. So who is going to pay for suffering caused to those 2, 00,000 people who lost their job. 19 billions can help thousands of children to get quality education, scholarships could be provided, fees could be waived, and better education facilities could be established and so on. Also it could help lots of people get access to better health facility. In her paper titled, “The most expensive health care system in the world”, Diana Wright of Sustainability Institute cite, “America has the most expensive health care system in the world, in spite of the fact that it leaves one-third of its citizens un- or under-insured and ranks 17^th of the 24 industrialized nations in life expectancy.” We can easily estimate how much can be done in health sector with that astounding 19 billions dollar. This proves how much economic sanctions are irrelevant from the perspective of its imposer as well.

Economic sanctions, which are often used by powerful nations or groups of nations to fulfill their vested interests, are unjust. They ignore the basic human rights of the citizens and devastate the economic infrastructure of the target country. Though the death and suffering that people have to face may not seem as significant as in war or other disasters, but the effects of economic sanctions is somewhat similar to that of war. The difference is only that economic sanctions are like slow poison, the negative effects of which will be seen in near future. Beside, economic sanctions do not only have adverse affects in the economy of the target country but the imposer itself as well, thus making it completely irrelevant in today’s world.