11
September 2001 will be indelibly marked in contemporary
global history as a turning point. Once the currently disturbing
mood of vendetta cools down, and wiser and sober leadership
emerges at the global level, then the tragedy can and must
instigate deeper reflection on the nature of our civilization
and the direction it has taken during the last half-century
or so. If the understandable, but misconceived, notions
of revenge direct the course of action of the leaders of
the Western world, then the opportunity for deeper reflection
will be delayed, but it will not be lost. And the process
of this reflection must start now.
It
would be utterly callous for anybody to defend the violence
of 11 September. The United States foreign policy, especially
towards Palestine, is arguably at the root of this carnage.
But whatever the faults of US policy, (and there are many,
including some in such fields as the protection of the environment,
the need to stop nuclear testing, and the walkout on the
Conference on Racism at Durban), these cannot, should never,
justify the massacre of innocent civilians. The bombing
of the twin trade towers in New York (as symbols of Western
capitalism) and of the Pentagon in Washington (as the symbol
of the military might of the Empire) might delight some,
even within the USA. But such acts of brutality cannot be
condoned even when, it may be argued not without justification,
that these two centres of global hegemony are, verily, the
cause of the misery for the bulk of humanity in the South,
and the ordinary people of the North.
The
first and obvious point of reflection is the exercise of
double standards by those who exercise power in the citadels
of the Empire. It cannot have missed the attention of discerning
observers that there is duplicity and cunning manipulation
of popular sentiment (through agencies such as the CNN)
even when sharing ones just anger and deserved sympathy
for the innocent who get caught up in the crossfire of violence.
Indeed, is there not a need to redefine what constitutes
violence? When the West imposes sanctions against Iraq and
a million innocent children die in the process, is that
not violence? And if the six thousand or more dead or missing
of the 11 September carnage and their families deserve our
sympathy and moral support why deny the same to the innocent
children who have died and are still dying in Iraq? The
West cannot get away from their moral responsibility by
simply transferring the blame to Saddam Hussein. Even if
we accept the arguable proposition that Hussein is the most
evil man on earth, how does it alter the moral outrage that
one must, for sure, feel at making the children of Iraq
pay the price in trying to punish this “evil”
man? Life is inherently precious. If life is denied to innocent
children through denial of medicine and nutrition, is it
any the less censurable than life denied through instant
bombing?
Now,
of course, it is the turn of Osman bin Laden to replace
Saddam Hussein as the most “evil” man on earth.
The United States contends that he was behind the bombing
of its embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. Following
that contention, and before any evidence could be adduced
to support it, the United States bombed a factory in the
Sudan. The US claimed, again without any evidence, that
the factory was making biological weapons. It turned out
to be a pharmaceutical factory. The Pentagon, or whoever
made the decision to bomb the factory in the Sudan, killed
hundreds of innocent people as a result of what fair-minded
people can only define as an act of terrorism by the Government
of the United States. Why, at the time, was the conscience
of the West not outraged?
By
what moral or ethical criteria can one justify these double
standards? It is our contention that injustice must be conquered
and sublimated through moral force. But we are no dreamers,
and we recognise that desperate people sometimes resort
to violence when other means have failed. In the 1970s and
80’s the World Council of Churches finally recognised
that the liberation fighters against apartheid South Africa
were left with no choice but to resort to guerrilla warfare.
Even then, the principle of targeting the military and sparing
the civilians, though sometimes breached, formed the basis
of guerrilla action. But in the recent wars in Africa (Rwanda,
the Congo, Sierra Leone) as well as in Yugoslavia, in Iraq
and in Palestine, almost all parties to the conflict have
targeted civilians. The brutal, animal, instinct takes over.
And when it does so, it is still morally wrong. It is indefensible.
But then it is wrong wherever it occurs, and whoever its
perpetrator. It is a good moral principle that innocent
civilians must be spared from acts of violence. But then
you cannot pick and choose when to apply this eminently
good principle when not to. You cannot condemn the breach
of this principle to the bombing of the twin Towers and
the Pentagon, and then remain silent when the Empire breaches
it in imposing sanctions against Iraq or in bombing the
pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan, or in many such instances
of acts of its violence.
And
what has this got to do with trade negotiations at the WTO?
Double
standards
The
same double standards apply to the negotiations in the WTO,
the IMF and the World Bank as to the perpetration of violence
and the murder of innocent civilians. That which is acceptable
if the West does it is not acceptable if the South does
it. Most countries in the West were able to develop their
economies under regimes of protection; this now is denied
to the South. Paul Krugman, the American economist, has
written that whereas the Bretton Woods institutions blindly
apply neo-classical economics to the countries of the South,
the wealthy countries themselves qualify these by practical
common sense.
That
common sense which permits Western countries to provide,
for example, subsidies to their agriculture, or that translates
as regulation of the market (for there is no country in
the West where there is free trade, or where there is no
subsidy), that common sense of the practical, is denied
to the South. The strictures of the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) outstrip even those of the WTO in its conditionalities
of assistance under its Structural Adjustment Programmes.
Subsidies, along with practical social tools like price
controls and regulation, are such “dirty” words
in the lexicon of the IMF, that countries in Africa systematically
eliminate these words (“search and delete”)
from their requests from the IMF for financial assistance.
And yet it is well known that the OECD countries give billions
of dollars of subsidies to their agriculture. In 1999 alone,
this amounted to US $ 361 billion.
Or
take the issue of corruption. In global international discourse,
especially that sponsored by the World Bank initiated Transparency
International, it would seem as if corruption is a purely
Southern affliction. And yet we know that it is rampant
in the West not only in Silvio Berlusconi's Italy, but also
in the Anglo-Saxon Empire. Recently, the world's two leading
and “respected” auction houses, Christie's and
Sotheby's, were exposed for an "international conspiracy"
lasting six years for “price-fixing” and outright
fraud. And, of course, it is well known that American and
European banks are involved in money laundering of billions
worth of drugs money. The Economist, of February 3, 2001
gave a summary of a report issued by a Senate investigations
subcommittee that said that foreign banks were allowed to
maintain correspondent accounts with American counterparts,
enabling "rogue foreign banks and their criminal clients"
to legitimise their ill-gotten gains. The report was pessimistic
that the American administration was likely to stop this
practice. Too many people in power benefited from this corrupt
business.
There
are some reasonable and sensible people in the West who
recognize these double standards in the global economic
dispensation, just as they recognize it in the global political
dispensation. Thus, for example, the Swiss Coalition of
Development Organisations have challenged their own government’s
position on TRIPS (Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights)
in the WTO. In September 2000, it called the State Secretariat
for Economic Affairs (SECO), which is the responsible ministry
for WTO issues within the federal government, for interactive
discussions. In its paper it said, inter alia, the following:
“TRIPs requires Members to introduce new protective
measures rather than eliminate them. The aim of intellectual
property rights is to ensure the long-term technological
advantage enjoyed by industrialised countries …. Copying
technology developed in other countries - which benefited
Switzerland's economy at the turn of the century and brought
later benefits to the economies of various Asian countries
as well - is prohibited. But even though this practice plays
an important role in the economic development of countries
in the South, it will no longer be permitted.”
Arrogance:
Mind over Matter
The double standards, at their fundamental level, are only
a part of the arrogance of the Empire. The Empire, under
the hegemony of the Anglo-Saxons, actually believes that
there should be different standards to judge the behaviour
of those in the Empire from that of those in the former
colonies. The lives lost in the South are of a lesser value
than those lost in the Empire. Disciplines that have to
be applied to the South, and if necessary enforced through
sanctions, do not have to be applied to the North.
It
is also assumed that what is good for the Empire must, by
definition, be also good for the South. This is where the
debate on globalization gets so badly convoluted. The policy-makers
in the North, and even some of their academics and intellectuals,
present it as if it were a “neutral” phenomenon,
driven by technology or some underlying inexorable forces.
These forces do exist, of course, but they are not neutral.
History is never neutral. It is always driven by human agents.
And so it is with globalization. It is driven by the dominant
forces of the North, principally in their own interests.
It is for this reason that the West can apply certain disciplines
(for example, on trade, subsidies and the movement of people)
selectively. They are right when the West applies them,
and wrong when the South does so.
This
is all part of the arrogance of the Empire. For example,
the former colonies can shout until their throats are dry
that trade liberalisation has not been good for them, but
the Empire will not listen. The Empire has decided that
since liberalisation is good for the Empire, it must, ipso
facto, be good for the former colonies. The Least Developed
Countries (LDCs) of the South decided at their meeting in
Zanzibar in July 2001 (see SEATINI Bulletin of 15 August,
2001) that they do not want a “new round” of
negotiations in the WTO until issues of implementation and
existing imbalances in the WTO are first addressed. But
it does not matter what they say. The Empire has decided
that a “new round” is good even for the LDCs.
It is, once again, Mind over Matter. “We, the Empire,
have made up our Mind, and you the LDCs don’t Matter.”
It
is this arrogance of the Empire that is at the root of the
rebellion in the South. The people in the North who are
politically conscious enough to recognise double standards
when they see them now join this rebellion. Some among them,
a very small minority, even resort to violence, as they
did at Seattle, Gothenburg and Genoa. Paradoxically, it
is the civil society movements from the South, along with
their friends in the North, that have sought to restrain
the more militant, and violent, expressions of rebellion
by the people of the North against the dominant system.
(See, for example, Walden Bello, “Comments on Genoa
in WTO-related Conference Call”, Focus on the Global
South, July 31, 2001). The sad part is that moderate expressions
of dissent and rebellion make little impact in the short
run. Moderate and reasonable voices seldom reach the ears
of the Empire. Sadly, bombs have to burst the eardrums before
voices of the oppressed are heard. Violence has the “virtue”
of stirring consciences and provoking reflections. Are militants
necessary conscience-raisers for the moderates? Must 11
Septembers repeat themselves because the Empire has no ears
to listen to the voices of the reasonable? Is there no non-violent
means to challenge the hubris of the Empire?
Yash
Tandon
Director,
Southern
and Eastern African Trade Information
Go to TOP
