Serfs and aristocrats
At the launch of From The Republic of Conscience in the National Library last night were Colm O’Gorman, executive director of Amnesty International’s Irish section, former president Mary Robinson, and poet Seamus Heaney.
Photograph: Aidan Crawley.
Former President Mary Robinson is reported to have said that
…the question of overseas aid was “no longer a them and us” question. “If you add it to climate there’s an interconnection . . . We’re going to be all in this together because we need to reduce the emissions across the world. It’s a really interconnected future until 2050. The future of the poorest is also our children’s and our grandchildren’s future.”
I wonder how many people believe that. I know I’m not completely sold.
Is there an interconnection? Absolutely. People in places like Ireland and the United States aren’t just concerned about the emissions from China’s factories out of concern for Chinese workers. The effects of climate change aren’t limited to the source of the human activity responsible for the causal environmental damage. That said, isn’t it curious that while most of us would rather the Chinese didn’t do anything that jeopardises our future, we’re still very happy with the fact that we have access to cheap manufactured goods? The world may be interconnected in some ways, but I suspect that the future of the poorest will be as removed from that of the wealthy as is currently the case.
There’s a fascinating dichotomy in the realm of global interconnectedness. On one hand, there are the areas in which everyone seems happy to be related. Climate change is a perfect example. The human rights arena an even better one. Climate change is a no-brainer because simple self-interest dictates that I should care about something that could have disastrous consequences for me, regardless of who is doing it. Human rights are more complicated. Provided that countries like Ireland don’t have to accommodate plane loads of refugees, and that export markets aren’t significantly affected, it’s hard to see how self-interest could possible be the driving force behind a concern for the rights of women in Benin.
Then there is the other side of the coin. If there really is this interconnectedness, what are my responsibilities? If climate change really is a shared challenge; if it is primarily the product of human industrial and commercial activity; if the benefits of that activity predominantly accrue to one group of people and the burdens to another - surely some sort of redistribution and overall commitment to getting by on less is required? But take note, no OECD country has decided to redistribute wealth to the ‘bottom billion’ by implementing a drastic national tax (ideally a tax that would also drastically reduce consumption so that those in poor countries could increase theirs without threatening the environment). Similarly, with human rights, if we value them that much, if we think that poor women in Benin are due the inalienable rights enjoyed by those in liberal Western democracies, then why is it virtually impossible for those same women to get access into an OECD country? And it’s not the illiberal state of Benin that denies them this access, but the liberal, human rights-championing OECD democracies.
The future of the poorest is also our children’s and our grandchildren’s future.
No it’s not. Not so long ago I heard a political scientist refer to the ordinary citizens of rich nations as the aristocrats of the world. He was right. The world is still very much a ‘them’ and ‘us’ place. The definitions determining who constitutes ‘them’ and ‘us’ may be more fluid today than in past, but the future of the serf is still likely to be serfdom. That of the aristocrat, provided the established order of things doesn’t change, will likely be aristocracy.
2:12 pm
My masters thesis was on neo-realism (kenneth waltz) versus complex interdependency (joseph nye & robert keohane). I disagree Byran that it is one or the other.
In reality we flit in and out of roles and in some roles like trade complex interdependency is more to the fore. However, on something like enregy or the arms trade, neo-realism and the competition for the global agenda and influence is these areas is much more pronounced.
In China, were they to adopt a human right based approach they could not persist with the plantation of the Uighur province or the occupation of Tibet. Indeed they could not train and fund the Maoist’s in Nepal. So they are very clearly advancing naked self-interest by advancing the rights of Beijing / Peking at the expense of other ethnicities.
It is far more complex as the international system has multiple actors with different capabilities and powers. The nature of power itself is ephemeral, difficult to acquire and yet easy to expend. Military power is not more useful than economic power but economic power is of limited use without military power. Companies and individuals have some of the latter and none of the former. International organisations like OPEC, NATO or the UN have one or other or a mix of both.
Countries are the only one with full control of both whether they are Chad or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or little old Ireland. It is countries and their elected governments or unelected junta’s that decide the role to be played by the country in the system.
It is a complicated, fluid game. Power is the name of the game and therefore the poorest have the least hope of advancement.
Comment by robespierre