Globalization: Trading Human Rights

Human rights are my primary concern related to globalization. At this point, globalization is not a choice; it’s a reality. The challenge of maintaining human rights is both a by-product of globalization and something that threatens its viability as a system of world order.
Obviously, definitions of human rights vary tremendously, however, according to the WTO-Human Rights Caucus “the canon of international human rights law (comprising civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights) offers a comprehensive legal definition of the fundamental elements of human wellbeing and human dignity.” It goes on to assert that “therefore, any trade or other economic policy that offends against the principles of human rights, either in design or practice, lacks moral and political legitimacy,” Their statement, which was presented on December 10, 2005 on the occasion of the Sixth Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization makes it seem like human rights should be a strong concern of the WTO and globalization in general. But does the evidence support the hope that globalization leads to increased human rights rather than decreased human rights? The same statement of the WTO-Human Rights Caucus conceded that “nevertheless, the international trade regime has repeatedly denied and rejected any intersection between its mandate and human rights.”
Statistics on human wellbeing and dignity are confusing. Globalization proponents would have us believe that when people are able to make more money (at least temporarily) working for or selling their land to a multinational corporation, their wellbeing goes up. However, what about the other aspects of human rights such as civil, political, social and cultural rights? I contend that a accurate assessment of globalization is only possible when its effects on people are considered in these broader terms.
It seems clear that political rights are limited when workers are not allowed to organize, such as in China, where independent labor unions are forbidden. “The Chinese Communist Party, although having allowed the flourishing of capitalism within its borders, continues to stifle human rights and civil liberties” according to Stephen Cheng in his article “Red Star Over Asia” (www.sonshi.com)China is an appealing business environment because of its lack of regulation, but C. K. Prahalad points out, “the poor in villages might be paying a price. For example, in the absence of institutions and laws, farmland can be appropriated for other uses by bureaucrats without a legal recourse for the farmer” (2006, The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, p. 80). The argument that globalization will increase democracy and political rights fades when the very governmental structures created to invite globalization do so at the cost of suppressing political freedoms.
This week my husband made two day-long trips to immigration offices as a translator for an illegal immigrant named Mario. Over the long drives, he learned Mario’s story of why he came to the US looking for work. Mario and his extended family own a farm in Mexico that they are very proud of. They grow corn for local food consumption. Over the years since the North American Free Trade Agreement, cheap US corn has been imported to Mario’s village, and his family farm can no longer compete. Thus he left his wife and children to illegally cross the border to find work and help his family survive. Eventually, his wife joined him, leaving two small children in Mexico, and together they had another child here. In Lima, where they live, Mexican people are often stopped by the local police and have been jailed indefinitely if they don’t have papers. Because of this fear, Mario and his family rarely leave the house. With recent crack-downs on hiring illegals, they have not found work, and can not buy adequate food. Now Mario is being deported, and bringing his 18 month old son home with him, leaving his wife to struggle here alone.
This story is anecdotal, and apparently economists would claim that there are more people helped by globalization than there are “Marios” in the world. However, I wonder if the statistics used for those conclusions take into account the millions of illegal aliens and economic refugees that are the acceptable collateral damage of globalization? Mario’s social human rights have been violated. His lifestyle and family have been torn apart, forcing him from his land to a strange country where the jobs available are often below social and legal standards.
An example of a violation of cultural human rights is described in the article “Genetic engineering and the Privatization of Seeds.” The authors describe the protests of Indian people who object to the “colonizing the food system” by Mosanto and other biotech corporations in India (2001, Mittal and Rosset, Real World Globalization, p. 241). In last week’s paper I wrote about the potato farmers in Peru who rejected a chemical-process-laden replacement for the hundreds of traditional species of potatoes know to their culture. The loss of the lifestyle of small scale farming, as well as the loss of culturally important species and plants in favor of the cash crops and agribusiness imports offered by globalization is a violation of cultural rights.
Human rights are a huge concern in Colombia, the most violent country in the world. In a report she titled “Globalization and ‘Free’ Trade in Colombia”, Anne Montgomery describes the connection between multinational corporations and the paramilitary terrorist forces that are responsible for much of the killing (2001, www.colombiajournal.org). Montgomery claims that the paramilitaries are private armies are hired by wealthy families and foreign corporations who abuse human rights for the benefit of their business interests.
Colombia has resulted in an increased popular resistance to the implementation of neoliberal economic policies. Consequently, there has been a corresponding increase in the levels of violence used against such elements as guerrillas, peasants, union leaders, and human rights activists who challenge a system of economic relations that ships resources needed for survival off to foreign lands under the label of “free trade.”

According to Montgomery, the paramilitaries intimidate and attack rural peasants, and then take control of their abandoned land on behalf of foreign investors. While globalization as a concept can’t be blamed for this kind of political chaos, the situation in Colombia shows a lack of concern for human rights versus the right to profit in any way possible, a globalization priority.
The human right to food cannot be ignored. Bjorn Lomborg claims “Food has become more plentiful and affordable, especially in the developing world...the proportion of hungry in the Third World has dropped from 50% in 1950 to less than 17% today.”(2007, “Global Warnings”) But, the WTO-Human Rights Caucus disagrees. Their 2005 statement says:
In a world that has more than enough food to feed everyone, the number of people who suffer from hunger and malnutrition is increasing…There are close linkages between agricultural trade liberalization and the failure to respect, protect or fulfill the human right to food. Developing countries have been pushed to open their agricultural markets to foreign imports that are often exported at less than the cost of production.

Relying on foreign imports can be dangerous. Cuba relied on Eastern Europe for much of its food production according to Mittal and Rosset, and when that part of the world became unavailable due to political upheaval, Cuba began to starve (2001, Real World Globalization, pp. 245-6). Fortunately, it was able to re-build its local small scale food producing infrastructure and once again provide for its citizens’ human right to food.
One compelling argument in favor of globalization is the benefit to women’s rights, an essential aspect of human rights. In The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, Prahalad writes, “in the cases in this book, there is adequate evidence of the role of women in building a new society at the BOP (bottom of the Pyramid (2006, p. 108).” Women have been given new access to training and employment through globalization, where many individual cultures would suppress their role in the economy. However, the picture for women is not all rosy, as is the case of stories of forced sterilizations in factories in China.
I must say that I see nothing inherent to globalization that has to be in opposition to human rights. Yet, as Anne Montgomery says, when “profit maximization is the name of the game… unequal relations of exchange are desirable” (2001, “Globalization and ‘Free’ Trade in Colombia,” www.colombiajournal.org). Increased trade can be a proponent of human rights, especially the right to monetary wealth, but human rights are not an inherent goal or concern of those with power under a system of globalization. “Even when trade does bring increased wealth, poor distribution of the benefits both within and between nations, perpetuates poverty and impedes the progressive realization of human rights” (2005, Statement of the WTO-Human Rights Caucus, www.hrichina.org).

References

Cheng, Stephen, “Red Star over Asia,” Sun Tzu's Art of War Applied to Modern Strategy and Leadership; www.sonshi.com.

Lomborg, Bjorn, “Global Warnings,” 2007, Project Syndicate; www.project-syndicate.org.

Montgomery, Anne, “Globalization and ‘Free’ Trade,” 2001; www.colombiajournal.org.

Prahalad, C.K. The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid; Eradicating Poverty Through Profits, 2006, Pearson
Education, Inc; Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Rakocy, Betsy, Reuss, Alejandro, Sturr, Chris, ed. Real World Globalization, 2007, Economic Affairs Bureau;
Boston, MA.

WTO-Human Rights Caucus, On the occasion of the Sixth Ministerial Conference
of the World Trade Organization, 2005, Human Rights in China; www.hrichina.org/public/contents/article?revision%5fid=26420&item%5fid=26396.