Human Rights and Globalization
In the year 1948 it was profoundly stated vide the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that globalization (the concept still being in its infancy) has the potential to enhance the implementation of human rights and the countries adhering allegiance to the doctrine would be benefitting not only in terms of economic growth but also on the attribute of human rights. There-after series of United Nations Agreements in general and the agreements on civil and political rights (1966) and the declaration on the right to development (1986) in particular, categorically stipulated that it was through globalization that parity on human rights on a global scale can be pragmatically achieved and effectively sustained.
This essay intends to investigate the continuum relationship that exists today. However as I perceive, the answer to this question may not onlybe excruciatingly difficult but also greatly complex, primarily on account of the existence of different and contradictory explanations of the term of globalization itself.
In principle if globalization is interpreted as an act of transforming the entire world into one uniform global entity in which all stake holders as global citizens are interconnected and all underlying barriers and hurdles are eliminated, in order to ensure that the world witnesses the emergence of a new paradigm which allows for a free and fast flow of capital, goods, ideas and people, then surely the world has the opportunity of achieving a positive parity in terms of human rights. This of course being a result of globalization propelling prosperity to all contours of the world, coupled with spread of principles of democracy, citizen rights, answerable governments, uniform accessibility of information at will, eventually leading to creation of a world dominated by the virtues of freedom and justice for all.
On the contrary, should globalization be treated as metamorphosing the globe in to a global village market, with largely commercial consideration involving goods, services and people as human resource, governed by norms and rules dictated by larger-than-life and insanely powerful transnational business organizations, and conglomerates, governed and united by the principle of accrual of profit, then under such an environment the human rights of the citizens of the globe would be grossly undermined and greatly threatened.
There is absolutely no scarcity of literature on globalization developed by the proponents and opponents of globalization alike.
The critics of globalization have laid greater stress upon its largely negative bearings on human rights, more so on the poor citizens of the world in general and of the developing and under-developed countries in particular. Bulk of their arguments are based on hard facts, andlogical inferences drawn on the basis of in-depth analysis of myriad of international reports and statistical evidence, which in their view is unequivocal evidence that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that human rights have been adversely and grossly affected and/or undermined by globalization. The evidence put forth by the critics of globalization does arguably infer that globalization has been instrumental in compromising and undermining the human rights of the citizens across the globe, and more-so in developing and under-developed economies. Their argument is based upon relating one or the other attribute of human right to one or the other attribute of globalization. Such as the existence of poverty particularly in developing countries resulting out of debt, or unemployment being a result of large scale privatization, or health conditions deteriorating on account of privatization of health services as well as on account of monopoly of drug patents and the resulting high price of medicines. The critics also bring to the forefront attributes such as impoverishment and systematic lowering standards of living, heightened sense of inequality and the resulting discrimination, poor being deprived of fulfillment of basic survival needs of clean drinking water, food and a roof atop their heads and increased illiteracy etc and attributing them to be a result of globalization in general on the basis of making comparisons between the position before globalization and a one after it. For example their claim that the progress in reducing infant mortality has been slower during the period of wide-spread globalization than over the preceding decades when the world was largely un-globalized.
The proponents of globalization, do not oppose the claims made by the critics, and accept that in some regions basic human rights have been compromised and have not been respected, particularly during the last decade. However their arguments are based upon the premise that such scenarios are a result of the refusal of countries and people to accept globalization and its tenets and that globalization ought to have losers and winners (this arguably pointing to the commercial bearings and consideration). The proponents propagate the idiom of losers dogma, and term the resistance to globalization being based upon resistance to change, emancipating out of traditional culture and also on account of the nature of the religious belief, which the proponents term as being un-democratic and anti-modernization, citing countries such as the failed state of Libya, or theocratic countries like Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan or cosmetically democratic countries like Pakistan etc.
It thus can be stated that the proponents and opponents of globalization do view in common light that human rights have been affected adversely by globalization or the events arising out of globalization, more so in developing and under-developed countries. However their explanations reside on completely different grounds of logic, and hence the cure being suggested to the problem also being starkly different. The remedy suggested by the proponents advocates greater absorption of people and countries in the global system, whereas the critics of globalization advocate the opposition and resistance to what they term as hegemony of gigantic transnational business organizations and injustice and corruption being inherent and intertwined to the process of globalization. Thus it becomes imperative to seek to identify: who is right? This of course may well be answered by acutely examining the basic assumptions of the Human Rights Agreements and the Globalization Agreements, in particular the Economic Agreements, which may well be perceived to be greatly in contradiction to the concepts of human rights.
Comparative Analysis of Basic Assumptions of Human Rights and Globalization
Analysis of the various United Nations proclamations, agreements and charters pertaining to human rights leads us to deduce that all the primary underlying assumptions have been based on the premise of human rights being the responsibility of the government. It is evidenced that agreements on human rights have been discussed, negotiated and ultimately signed by the representative of the government and by and large it is the government with which lies the onus of its implementation or violations. In general governments have been recommended to be free to adopt any political, economic, social, cultural and legislative measures as it deems fit to ensure the uniform implementation of doctrine of human rights in their respective countries. Similarly all the annual reports on the human rights status under different countries published by United Nations or other watch groups have categorically held the governments responsible for implementation as well as violation of human rights, by proclaiming that the governments are the policy makers and bearers as well as the prime decision makers for all fronts including economic, political and social domains in their respective countries.
Following the Universal declaration of Human Rights in 1948, numerous countries succeeded in creating an environment that harnessed the implementation of different attributes of human rights encompassing domains inclusive of economic, social, and cultural attributes, primarily by way of providing subsidy on food, housing and services such as health care, sanitation, education, transportation etc. Countries particularly in the southern region of the globe took considerable strides in the area of right to work, primarily through policies of protectionism with respect to local industries, thereby guarding the industries from the onslaught of competition and subsequently creating and securing job opportunities for their citizens.Hence, succeeding in fulfilling an important attribute of human right, - the right to work/job.
However agreements on globalization mandate the government to abide by global market mechanisms, do away with policies of protectionism with respect to domestic industries and to follow the dictum of numerous international agencies like WTO, IMF, and the World Bank directed towards creating a free market economy guided by the principles of demand and supply, competition, and profits. Abiding to such dictum in turn transforms the government from being a decision maker particularly in the area of economic domain to a decision taker, forced to abide by the norms of external agencies, operating strictly on the principles of global free market mechanism.Such governments are hence required to make a range of adjustments and restructuralization in the societal systems. The governments enact new laws to facilitate the operations of the global free market mechanism and in certain conditions are required to amend the articles of their constitutions to ensure the application of tools of free market economy, like privatization of public sector undertakings, facilitating global competition with absolutely no protectionism what-so-ever, and reduction in the subsidies granted to local industries.Such modifications, with some being radical in nature like privatization of public sector undertaking, or the changes pertaining to taxation, employee-employer relations, or withdrawal of subsidies, particularly those encompassing basic needs have a direct and definitive bearing on the human rights. Hence all decisions taken by the government have to be in light profit and loss, and everything to be dealt with as a market commodity judged on the parameters of their economic value as against their social values.
The open door policy adopted by governments requires enacting laws allowing for free flow of capital and goods with almost no restrictions on imports through tariffs, creates a situation where such law impedes another fundamental human right declared by the United Nation - the right being the right to development.Since government’ssources of fundaccrual islimited and is generated largely through duties/tariffs and taxes, which under the globalized regime cease to exist, thereby depriving the government of money, which ideally it may have employed for development and progressive purposes and projects.
The governments are hence subjected to a radically paradoxical situation, where-in should they strive to abide by the United Nations agreement on human rights, they may end up violating the treaties on globalization, which may lead to large scale criticism as well as the threat of penalties on account of violation of the treaty on globalization. The penalties may account for a cut in aids being offered to them by international organization.on the other front should the government decide to abide to the principle of globalization, it may end up violating the human rights agreement, and thus face criticism through numerous human rights reports and the UN statistics on human development signaling the country to be lagging behind in the indices of human development.
How do governments face the contradiction?
Data and numerous research findings suggest that governments, particularly of the developing economies are coerced to sacrifice and compromise human rights for the sake of globalization.
The Bhopal Gas Tragedy
The Bhopal Gas Tragedy of 1984 was a calamity, a behemoth in terms of industrial accidents, one that has had no parallel on the world’s industrial history, and is considered the world's worst industrial disaster.It is also a compelling and a glaring example of blatant disregard of human rights at the hands of a gigantic global corporation, which successfully employed strong arm tactics to ensure its escape from bearing any kind of responsibility and accountability pertaining to the disaster.
The disaster of a magnitude beyond comparison occurred on the intervening night of 2 & 3 December 1984, at Union Carbide India Limited, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. The catastrophic event exposed more than 500, 000 residents of Bhopal to highly toxic and lethal gas known as Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) and other poisonous and life threatening chemicals.
The official figure of the number of people killed due to lethal gas was put at 3787 and 558,125 injured, out of which 3900 were severely injured resulting in permanent disability. The unofficial estimate of the number of deaths ranges from 8000 to 16,000.
The cause of the disaster remains under debate primarily because Union Carbide India Limited in order to protect itself floated a fictional theory of the accident being an act of sabotage, allegedly carried out by the terrorists. The Indian government and local activists however argued that slack management and deferred maintenance created a situation where routine pipe maintenance caused a back-flow of water into a MIC tank, triggering the disaster.
UCC chairman and CEO Warren Anderson was arrested four days after the tragedy only to be released on bail within six hours by the Madhya Pradesh Police in Bhopal on 7 December 1984 on $2,100 bail and flown out on a government plane. It was alleged that strong arm tactics directed at the Indian government were employed by transnational corporations to ensure that Anderson was allowed to leave the country.
Later in 1987, the Indian government summoned Anderson, eight other executives and two company affiliates with homicide charges to appear in Indian court. In response, Union Carbide said the company is not under Indian jurisdiction.In 1989, UCC paid $470 m to settle litigation stemming from the disaster. In June 2010, seven ex-employees, including the former UCIL chairman, were convicted in Bhopal of causing death by negligence and sentenced to two years imprisonment and a fine of about $2,000 each, the maximum punishment allowed by Indian law. Anderson died on 29 September 2014 without facing the sentence.
A disaster waiting to happen
Similarly human rights violations were identified by Amnesty International at Myanmar's largest copper mine, the Letpadaung mine. The company under scrutiny, a subsidiary of China’s Wanbao Mining, which having the intentions of extend the mine’s perimeter, with the objective of excavating a larger area of the mine was found putting hundreds of people at risk by way of forced eviction from their homes and farmland. The company also ignored the guideline that mandates it to undertake adequate environmental assessment of the mine, thereby putting the safety of the communities in its vicinity at great risk. The risks being faced by the workers of the mine and the dwellers of the neighboring areas are further compounded by the fact that the region is prone to earthquakes and floods, and if either of these strikes the mine, it could result in contaminated waste spreading into the surrounding environment with catastrophic results.
We as consumers contributing to human rights violations
We may choose to remain ignorant but that does not defy the fact that we as consumers do also contribute to violations of human rights, albeit not directly and knowingly.
Palm oil is widely used by multinational behemoths like Colgate Palmolive, Unilever, and Nestlé etc. in the manufacture of shampoos, toothpastes, ice-creams, and chocolates which are then marketed globally. The details on the packing might also state that Palm Oil being used is sustainable - i. e being environmentally friendly and that the workers engaged are treated fairly with standard working conditions, fair wages, and child labors are not employed. However a recent investigation by Amnesty International revealed an alarming state of human rights violations at the hands of these global behemoths which included frequent use of child labors and existence of inhumane working conditions for labors engaged in plantation fields, exposure of labors and workers to toxic chemicals without any protection, cases of forced labor, low pay, discrimination against women. long work hours etc.
Cheating the consumer to the point of no-return
Nestlé is the world’s largest food and beverage company having more than 2000 brands with operations in 191 countries world-wide. Nestlé India has an annual sale in excess of $1.5 billion, out of which Maggi instant noodle brand accounting for 20%. It is a house-hold name in India and a favorite among children and teen-agers. In 2015-16 Maggi accounted for 60% of India's noodle sales. In a survey conducted in 2015, Maggi was ranked as among the top five most trusted brands in India. In 2016 Food Safety Regulators in India found unsafe levels of Lead and Monosodium Glutamate, in samples of Maggi instant noodles, contrary to the foods labeling. Lead being an extremely toxic metal and young children being particularly vulnerable to its toxins, it can lead to profound and permanent adverse health effects, particularly affecting the development of the brain and nervous system. Lead also causes long-term harm in adults, including increased risk of high blood pressure and kidney damage. Exposure of pregnant women to high levels of lead can cause miscarriage, stillbirth, premature birth and low birth weight, as well as minor malformations, where-as Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) is a flavor enhancer. It is termed as an excito-toxin, which implies that it induces over-excitement of the cells to the point of damage or destruction, thereby causing brain damage to varying degrees, and potentially even triggering or worsening learning disabilities. The other side negative effects being obesity, eye damage, frequent headaches, fatigue, disorientation, depression, rapid heartbeat, tingling and numbness.
These are not just a few isolated instances of gross human rights violations at the hands of global giants; the list is virtually endless and is spread across the world. It would be prudent to assume that no matter how noble the intentions may have been with respect to initiating the concept of globalization, the results have been far from satisfactory. It would also prove to be a logical inference that transnational business organizations operate with a core objective of generating profits by reducing the cost of operations to the bare minimum, in turn compromising the safety of the workers and coercing the governments for concessions of every possible nature, all in the name of globalization and free market system. MNC's also function on the unstated maxim of zero responsibility towards the welfare of the host countries, with the inherent intention of accumulating absolute authority to the point of dictating terms and conditions to the government of host countries, influencing government policies, financial structure and even budgetary provisions of the host nation. There-by creating a scenario fertile for fostering crony capitalism.
This unwarranted scenario can be reversed and modified to ensure that globalization delivers what was originally desired of it .i. e. expansion of democratic principle of governance, protection of human rights and global prosperity. However it can only be achieved through a strong consortium of governments across the globe and working in-coherence with each other with the core agenda of creating a truly globalized world, a world being beneficial and just for all its stake-holders, honoring human rights and eradicating all forms of discriminations, biases and prejudices and should we achieve this wondrous paradigm, only then can we all be regarded as global citizens of a truly globalized world.