Issue 45 May 2009 - Globalization, Terror and Ethics, A Human Rights perspective

This article first appeared in Globalizations, 2009, Vo1.6, Issue 1, pp.145-149 and is reproduced here with permission.

At first glance it may be tempting to rather dismissively think that the only connections to be drawn among the above is that of course neither globalization nor terror is ethical and matters can just be left at that. But in this real world do we not need to explore further to understand if there are any connections which need to be made? If so, what might be some of the challenges posed? More importantly, how might some of these challenges best be met for the benefit of humanity?

In browsing for any possible interfaces between globalization and ethics you are fortunate to come across www.eginitiative.org- website of "Realising Rights: an Ethical Globalization Initiative", an NGO led by the universally respected Mary Robinson, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and former President of Ireland. It offers the following description of an ethical globalization--

·          "'ethical globalization' acknowledges shared responsibility for addressing global challenges and affirms that our common humanity doesn't stop at national boundaries;

·          recognises that all individuals are equal indignity and have the right to certain entitlements rather than viewing them as objects of benevolence or charity;

·          embraces the importance of gender and the need for attention to the different impacts of economic and social policies on women and men;

·          affirms that a world connected by technology and trade must also be connected by shared values, norms of behaviour and systems of accountability.

Ethical globalization requires greater recognition of the responsibility of the international community to help people who have been denied their fundamental rights. This requires taking human rights beyond their more traditional political and legal realms and applying them to other fields."

The UN Millennium Development Goals ("MDGs'') offered one such way forward of linking ethics with globalization and the 2015 targets provided a means of measuring progress towards such goals. It may be worth reminding ourselves, particularly in the developed world, in these times of preoccupation with the financial crisis gripping the world, just what these MDGs are:

·          Goal 1 - eradicate extreme poverty and hunger.

·          Goal 2 - achieve universal primary education.

·          Goal 3- promote gender equality and empower women.

·          Goal 4 - reduce child mortality.

·          Goal 5 - improve maternal health.

·          Goal 6- combat HIV / Aids, malaria and other diseases.

·          Goal 7 - ensures environmental sustainability.

·          Goal 8 - develop a global partnership for development.

The MDGs did seem set to take their place on the global agenda, not only in the sense of at least presenting the real ethical challenges to be addressed by globalization but also in further energising the emerging globalised civic society.

And then 9/11 ... and its aftermath which has contaminated our landscape to this day. Global governance was shaken to its roots by the challenge laid down to even the UN Charter itself by the US as it gathered its "coalition of the willing" to invade Iraq in violation of international law.

Rather than treating the 9/11 outrage as a crime against humanity and obtaining the support of all to bring the perpetrators to justice there was instead launched the ''war on terror".

This was a term which lacked any legitimacy, comprehensible definition, achievable purpose or identifiable conclusion and only served to bring tragedy to the lives of millions and undermine the international rule of law and hard-won recognition of human rights of us all. The internationally outlawed practice of torture was brought in from the cold and given a veneer of legitimacy. The spectre of "disappearances" returned in the so-called civilised world.

Within the UK, the Prime Minister declared that, "the rules of the game have changed" and it soon became evident that this new set of rules, or perhaps more accurately the lack of rules, and culture were to include complicity with torture and disappearances, incitement of Islam phobia, increased state surveillance and attempts to weaken the judiciary.

This regressive culture has reached the stage that it now actually threatens the survival of the UK Human Rights Act 1998. The Act, which had finally incorporated into the UK the European Convention of Human Rights of 1953, is now itself at stake with the Labour Government seeking to weaken it and the Conservative opposition committed to its repeal should it gain power.

The Convention had been drawn up post-Second World War to ensure there was no return to fascism and it is the Convention's absolute prohibition against torture- which now prevents the UK from deporting individuals to countries where there is a real risk that they would be tortured- which is now proving problematic for our government and possible government-in-waiting. "Unilateralism", "for us or against us", "war of civilisations" and "security interests first", etc. were foisted on a world in which for the majority of its inhabitants security actually meant the human security of meeting the daily needs of food, water and shelter, etc.

The really pressing global challenges requiring urgent multilateral solutions such as the UN Millennium Development Goals and climate change consequently lost ground. If there were connections among globalization, ethics and terror it wasn't easy to spot them in those times.

The first steps towards reclaiming the need of global governance came at the World Summit of 2005 which endorsed the report from Kofi Annan, then UN Secretary-General. His report entitled, "In Larger Freedom", the title of which was drawn from the Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, set out the three proposed UN pillars for the 21st century namely, security and development and human rights. By security he meant human security in the developing world, without which it was warned there would be alienation of the marginalised and the potential of terrorism, by development he meant sustainable and equitable development and human rights was understood as the prerequisite for achieving both security and development.

In short, either globalization had to be made to benefit all or it could not be sustainable. So, the connections between globalization, ethics and terror were set out for us all to act upon. The urgent need of humanisation of the social and natural environment may be one way of describing these connections.

The historic election of Barak Obama to the US Presidency has now resonated around the world. For some it is simply overwhelming relief that the dark period of terror may be coming to an end. For others his election is seen as potentially a step towards a better and fairer world. No matter how his Presidency actually turns out his election has the potential of engaging and energising a new generation of active global citizens who will undoubtedly want to go further. Some commentators are drawing comparisons between the time of President Roosevelt and the emergence of President-elect Obama in terms of both being faced with economic crises and wars. But there is another resonance between these times and there was another Roosevelt-Eleanor Roosevelt, who was the key architect of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ("UDHR"), the 60th Anniversary of which we mark this December 10.

If we go back to Mary Robinson's description of an ethical globalization we can see the connection between the aspirations of the UDHR of Eleanor Roosevelt and others and the demands of our own times. This was also the connection clearly made by Kofi Annan in choosing the title of "In Larger Freedom", drawn from the Preamble of the UDHR, to the World Summit in 2005. With the present very much in mind it is then of interest to remind ourselves of just what is stated within the Preamble to the UDHR which is at the same time the most translated but also perhaps the least read document of the 20th Century! It reads as follows:

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the adve nt of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people; Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law; Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nat ions Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom; Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms; Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realisation of this pledge.

Now, therefore, The General Assembly proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

Of course, hard questions now need to be asked as to what has been the impact of the UDHR and what relevance does it have for today. Whilst there has been undoubted progress over the past 60 years there remains much to be done to fulfil its true potential.Human rights have certainly won recognition as part of the formal international and national legal frameworks, but in reality do not effectively reach the majority of humanity who struggle to survive from day to day in the informal sphere unaware of their rights or the means to realise them. Even within those institutions and countries where there is a formal recognition of human rights, current events show us that nothing can be taken for granted.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq has contaminated the global and domestic landscape in ways which may have been thought unimaginable.In terms of its modern relevance, Mary Robinson's analysis is of interest: "Ethical globalization requires greater recognition of the responsibility of the international community to help people who have been denied their fundamental rights. This requires taking human rights beyond their more traditional political and legal realms and applying them to other fields."This undoubtedly involves integrating human rights considerations- and honouring of international human rights legal obligations-into the formation of states' policies on trade, combating climate change, etc. It also extends to applying human rights obligations to non-state actors, such as the private sector, to which globalization has given increasing economic and political power- with which must come responsibility.

Perhaps then the real issue and the connection among globalization, ethics and terror is that human rights need to be understood and applied as a means as well as end in themselves, i.e. more than an aspiration which can be overcome by events.

Security from terror can only be assured if there is human security provided for those marginalised by globalization and development can only be sustained if those in the most need are empowered to claim their right to development and the satisfaction of their rights to an adequate standard of living.This has become increasingly understood as a "rights-based approach" in which individuals and communities are "rights-holders", not objects of benevolence, and state bodies are "duty-bearers" and legally accountable to realise such rights of their populations.

Such an approach empowers and energises individuals and communities through raising their awareness that they have an entitlement to effectively participate in the conduct of their day-to-day affairs and governance of their country and their world.

A rights-based-approach may then be the connection needing to be made among globalization, terror and ethics.