 If
you're a regular reader of this blog, you probably know that I'm
opposed to unregulated 'free' trade, very worried about the
extraterritoriality of the WTO, NAFTA, Davos and other corporatist
captives, strongly opposed to domestic corporations 'offshoring' jobs,
using influence with the Bush regime and other right-wing governments
to circumvent social and environmental laws and responsibilities, and a
great believer in taking the pledge to buy local, and in community
self-sufficiency.
At the same time, I'm a strong supporter of the UN and other
multi-lateral NGOs, and I believe that we each have a responsibility
for the well-being of all the people and creatures of this world. Some
readers have said this view is inconsistent, and I wasn't quite sure
how to respond to such charges. Fortunately, Peter Singer, in his
recent book on global ethics, One World: The Ethics of Globalization,
has come to my rescue. Singer sees no inconsistency between strong
local autonomy, community, and self-sufficient economies on the one
hand, and global responsibility on the other. The book is based on the
Dwight Terry lectures at Yale in 2000, but has been updated to
incorporate reflection on the events of 9/11 and the appalling Bush
social, environmental and economic record.
I'll have more to say next week about Bush's fraudulent and despicable
Earth Day media blitz, and the major media's shameless lack of critical
evaluation of the utter nonsense that his propaganda machine has been
churning out this week on the environment -- newspeak of Orwellian
proportions. The first part of Singer's book deals with environmental
responsibility, and his prescription for increasing it -- immediate
ratification of Kyoto by the US and other holdout countries, and
introduction of an emissions trading mechanism to make the realization
of Kyoto feasible (subject to the need for some oversight on the
disposition of the proceeds of such trading when it involves autocratic
governments).
The second part of the book deals with the global economy, and Singer
adroitly tears apart the Economist's (and other neocons') naive
assertion that economic globalization somehow benefits both rich and
poor countries. He then goes on to prescribe a substantial reform of
the WTO and the GATT, which could actually lead to more equitable
distribution of wealth and more efficient production of economic goods,
while safeguarding human rights, labour and the environment.
Unfortunately, the multi-national corporations and corporatists who
hold sway in the WTO would never tolerate Singer's prescription, since
it would entirely divert the benefits of economic globalization from
their pockets to those of the world's poor.
The third part of the book deals with international law, and Singer
lashes out at Bush for his unconscionable refusal to ratify the
International Court of Justice, and for the UN's continued hesitancy to
accept a duty (not a right) to intervene in situations of genocide and
other humanitarian crises, even within a single nation. Singer is
sanguine about the limitations and dangers of 'global government', but
supports strengthening the UN to enable it to act as a 'protector of
last resort', and including in its mandate the responsibility to
supervise elections in all member nations.
The fourth and final part goes back to ethical principles and proposes
that countries must, in this world where national boundaries no longer
have any logistic meaning, set aside national interest and embrace,
once and for all, global interest, impartially. That does not mean
cultural homogenization, but imposes a responsibility for the reduction
of inequality, both of economic resources and personal rights and
freedoms.
Always the pragmatist, Singer concludes by worrying out loud about how the responsibility for a global ethic could be managed:
It
is widely believed that a world government would be, at best, an
unchecked bureaucratic behemoth that would make the bureaucracy of the
EU look lean and efficient. At worst, it would become a global tyranny,
unchecked and unchallengeable. These thoughts have to be taken
seriously. How to prevent global bodies becoming either dangerous
tyrannies or self-aggrandizing bureaucracies, and instead make them
effective and responsive to the people whose lives they affect? It is a
challenge that should not be beyond the best minds in the fields of
political science and public administration.
I'd like to believe that this was possible, because if it isn't, we're
in serious trouble. We cannot expect national governments to set aside
parochial interests, especially when this entails accepting a
responsibility that would, for the richer nations, inevitably lead to a
drastic redistribution of wealth to poorer nations and hence a sudden
and sharp reduction in, at least, economic living standards (if not
necessarily well-being). But as John Ralston Saul has so eloquently
argued, larger organizations and institutions, whether public or
private, are almost always, and inherently, less efficient, less agile,
more resistant to change, more hierarchic, and less transparent than
smaller organizations. So the challenge is to achieve the best of both
worlds, having organizations of global scope and authority and
responsibility, but broken up into sufficiently small, autonomous and
dynamic units that they are sensitive, resilient, responsible and
responsive to the people and communities they serve. We can only hope
that "the best minds in the fields of political science and public
administration", wherever they are, are up to the task.
|
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
