Critical Review - Assignment 1
In “The Process of Economic Globalization and Protection of Human Rights in Latin America”, R. Narayanan explores the inherent conflicts and contradictions between economic liberalization and the promotion of human rights. According to the author, the paradox of Latin America is that despite its passing into a ‘dawn of democracy’, as seen by the widespread emergence of democratic regimes in the past two decades, the incidence of human rights abuses remains rampant throughout the continent (Narayanan, 2004). Adopting democratic institutions and practices does not in itself rearrange social and cultural order according to its most fundamental principles of equality and liberty. The scourge of corruption and impunity that plagues much of Latin America is testament to this flawed reasoning. Nor does adopting neo-liberal economic policies necessarily strengthen a state’s democratic institutions, as can be seen by the negative effects of NAFTA on the plight of indigenous communities and the poor in Mexico. This article dissects three policy instruments that are central to the development models of transnational economic agencies such as the World Bank to show their incompatibility with human rights protection. These development models, characterized by mercantilist structural adjustment policies (SAPs), have been demanded by the western world, most notably the United States, as preconditions to trade relations and financial aid.
Although the majority of Latin American states have adopted democratic institutions and political processes, they struggle to consolidate these gains, which would lead to civic and political environments that reflect democratic values and freedoms. At times, democracy seems nothing more than a veil of legitimacy, offering universal suffrage and competitive elections while corruption, impunity and a weak rule of law disempower any mechanisms and modalities that attempt to protect basic human rights, achieve social equality and preserve cultural identities (Narayanan, 2004).
The author offers a critique of international economic and political relations to highlight the adverse effects of globalization on human rights protection in Latin America. The analysis focuses on three key elements: ‘Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement’ (TRIPS), ‘Dispute Settlement Understanding’ (DSU), and ‘Multi-lateral Institutions (MLIs) and the Alleviation of Poverty’. These three elements of trade relations reinforce the exploitative and unjust nature of the western world’s involvement in Latin American affairs. The TRIPS agreement, whose text was drafted by the pharmaceutical industry in concert with the US government, is shown to be reminiscent of colonial era mercantilism. The author holds that it runs counter to the basic tenets of liberalization by favoring monopoly power and creating dependencies (Narayanan, 2004). In the past, European states fueled their economies with the abundant natural resources in Latin America, hampering the development of its domestic industries. Today, health care and food production in Latin America is compromised by foreign corporations seeking access and control of land, markets and labor forces through the channels of free trade.
The incidence of monoculture plantations that has plagued much of the central US has also swept across Latin America, where foreign corporations can outbid domestic firms and exploit cheap labor in contempt of international human rights agreements. To infringe on a country’s food production system borders on cultural genocide in Latin America, where indigenous communities rely heavily on traditional agriculture for subsistence living. The advent of patented, pesticide-resistant seed varieties is highly contentious since it robs the farmer of his right to save seeds for future cultivation. The Monsanto designed terminator technology, which makes seeds sterile after one growing season, is nothing more than economic enslavement since farmers must purchase new seeds every year. Furthermore, the malnutrition and food security solutions designed by western agribusiness firms can be ignorant of local realities in developing countries, as can be seen by the case of golden rice as the failed miracle cure for childhood blindness in Bangladesh (Greenpeace). Allowing the patenting of life forms and giving privileged status to GMOs violates food sovereignty and incapacitates research into new, culturally appropriate agricultural techniques that are adapted to local environments. The efforts to address the adverse effects of globalization on agricultural production are complicated by bureaucratic inefficacy, corruption and pressure by foreign governments who have vested interests in Latin American resources. When regional governments try to safeguard the livelihood of local communities they are faced with cumbersome national policies designed by the tenets of economic liberalization abroad (Narayanan, 2004).
The DSU mechanism has predominantly been a tool for developed states to settle grievances against developing states that strayed from WTO mandates in the interest of protecting basic human rights and dignifying the lives of their citizens (Narayanan, 2004). Along with the World Bank and the IMF’s corrective policy package, entitled the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC), the DSU is insufficient recourse for years of ill-advised economic restructuring and seems to merely reinforce the status quo. Furthermore, the HIPC is only available to countries that undergo “at least two Enhanced Structural Adjustments Facilities under the surveillance of the IMF” (Narayanan, 2004, p. 182).
The central questions of this article ask why Latin American democracies resist consolidation and fail to protect human rights and what internal and external factors help to explain the paradox. Although the author touches on internal problems with corruption and impunity, the crux of the blame is placed on international economic and political institutions that operate unbridled by international rights agreements and are routinely responsible for violating their codes. The logic behind the idea that economic liberalization and democracy are mutually reinforcing has run its course in Latin America. Even in the more developed nations of the continent, such as Chile and Argentina, widespread rights abuses continue to plague civil society. Although the tools and the knowledge for capitalist exploitation were offered by the consolidated democracies of the west, the role of a comprador class within Latin American cannot be understated.
Another important issue raised by this article is the disconnect between multilateral institutions, such as the World Bank and the WTO, and the protection of human rights under international law. The author quotes dialogue between the UN Secretary General and the World Bank’s vice-president to reinforce that international trade regimes are not mandated to enforce human rights protection, but rather create the economic conditions necessary for their protection. Since enforcing human rights laws is clearly not their intended role, what is their obligation to cases of rights violations as a result of their policies? When governments allow their own industries to be privatized by foreign firms they are compromising their abilities to defend food sovereignty and uphold their own constitutional rights. The same problems are often true of more developed nations, but the weaknesses of most Latin American democracies compound the struggle and lead to a cementing of the status quo. Multilateral institutions should fully acknowledge their culpability, recognize state sovereignty over agriculture and partner with local governments to design less invasive and damaging economic policies.
Since the colonial encounter, the trends of economic and political manipulation have persisted throughout Latin America. Whereas the Empires of Europe were once to blame, it is now the forces of capitalist imperialism that continue the rape of human and natural resources across the continent. The anomaly of this predatory and insatiable system is that it continues to evolve in spite of our understanding of its consequences. In order to solidify the trajectory of neo-imperialism, its proponents in positions of power cultivate a distorted notion of progress while relying on the undersides of democracy, such as hyper-nationalism, voter apathy and corruption, to inhibit collective resistance. The design and values of this system are so inextricably woven into western culture that its dissolution presents an existential conflict for those who regale in its offerings.
Humanity is clearly witnessing another loss of innocence. With the colonial encounter began the subordination of the indigenous people in Latin America and today, largely through neo-liberal economic policies and political meddling, the erosion of indigenous culture, value and knowledge carries on at a frightening pace. In political organization, the autonomous character of indigenous societies has withered under the power of democracies behaving more like centralized autocracies. In natural resource management, cooperative land stewardship has had to yield to myopic corporate ideology. In regards to human rights, globalization shares the same hypocrisy as colonialism: while intended to civilize, create prosperity and equality, it has fostered violence, poverty and a widening disparity between the rich and poor. Humanity must enter a new era of consciousness where life takes precedence over wealth and the positive strengths of each culture are cultivated to their full potential and united to ensure our survival.
last301
In “The Process of Economic Globalization and Protection of Human Rights in Latin America”, R. Narayanan explores the inherent conflicts and contradictions between economic liberalization and the promotion of human rights. According to the author, the paradox of Latin America is that despite its passing into a ‘dawn of democracy’, as seen by the widespread emergence of democratic regimes in the past two decades, the incidence of human rights abuses remains rampant throughout the continent (Narayanan, 2004). Adopting democratic institutions and practices does not in itself rearrange social and cultural order according to its most fundamental principles of equality and liberty. The scourge of corruption and impunity that plagues much of Latin America is testament to this flawed reasoning. Nor does adopting neo-liberal economic policies necessarily strengthen a state’s democratic institutions, as can be seen by the negative effects of NAFTA on the plight of indigenous communities and the poor in Mexico. This article dissects three policy instruments that are central to the development models of transnational economic agencies such as the World Bank to show their incompatibility with human rights protection. These development models, characterized by mercantilist structural adjustment policies (SAPs), have been demanded by the western world, most notably the United States, as preconditions to trade relations and financial aid.
Although the majority of Latin American states have adopted democratic institutions and political processes, they struggle to consolidate these gains, which would lead to civic and political environments that reflect democratic values and freedoms. At times, democracy seems nothing more than a veil of legitimacy, offering universal suffrage and competitive elections while corruption, impunity and a weak rule of law disempower any mechanisms and modalities that attempt to protect basic human rights, achieve social equality and preserve cultural identities (Narayanan, 2004).
The author offers a critique of international economic and political relations to highlight the adverse effects of globalization on human rights protection in Latin America. The analysis focuses on three key elements: ‘Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement’ (TRIPS), ‘Dispute Settlement Understanding’ (DSU), and ‘Multi-lateral Institutions (MLIs) and the Alleviation of Poverty’. These three elements of trade relations reinforce the exploitative and unjust nature of the western world’s involvement in Latin American affairs. The TRIPS agreement, whose text was drafted by the pharmaceutical industry in concert with the US government, is shown to be reminiscent of colonial era mercantilism. The author holds that it runs counter to the basic tenets of liberalization by favoring monopoly power and creating dependencies (Narayanan, 2004). In the past, European states fueled their economies with the abundant natural resources in Latin America, hampering the development of its domestic industries. Today, health care and food production in Latin America is compromised by foreign corporations seeking access and control of land, markets and labor forces through the channels of free trade.
The incidence of monoculture plantations that has plagued much of the central US has also swept across Latin America, where foreign corporations can outbid domestic firms and exploit cheap labor in contempt of international human rights agreements. To infringe on a country’s food production system borders on cultural genocide in Latin America, where indigenous communities rely heavily on traditional agriculture for subsistence living. The advent of patented, pesticide-resistant seed varieties is highly contentious since it robs the farmer of his right to save seeds for future cultivation. The Monsanto designed terminator technology, which makes seeds sterile after one growing season, is nothing more than economic enslavement since farmers must purchase new seeds every year. Furthermore, the malnutrition and food security solutions designed by western agribusiness firms can be ignorant of local realities in developing countries, as can be seen by the case of golden rice as the failed miracle cure for childhood blindness in Bangladesh (Greenpeace). Allowing the patenting of life forms and giving privileged status to GMOs violates food sovereignty and incapacitates research into new, culturally appropriate agricultural techniques that are adapted to local environments. The efforts to address the adverse effects of globalization on agricultural production are complicated by bureaucratic inefficacy, corruption and pressure by foreign governments who have vested interests in Latin American resources. When regional governments try to safeguard the livelihood of local communities they are faced with cumbersome national policies designed by the tenets of economic liberalization abroad (Narayanan, 2004).
The DSU mechanism has predominantly been a tool for developed states to settle grievances against developing states that strayed from WTO mandates in the interest of protecting basic human rights and dignifying the lives of their citizens (Narayanan, 2004). Along with the World Bank and the IMF’s corrective policy package, entitled the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC), the DSU is insufficient recourse for years of ill-advised economic restructuring and seems to merely reinforce the status quo. Furthermore, the HIPC is only available to countries that undergo “at least two Enhanced Structural Adjustments Facilities under the surveillance of the IMF” (Narayanan, 2004, p. 182).
The central questions of this article ask why Latin American democracies resist consolidation and fail to protect human rights and what internal and external factors help to explain the paradox. Although the author touches on internal problems with corruption and impunity, the crux of the blame is placed on international economic and political institutions that operate unbridled by international rights agreements and are routinely responsible for violating their codes. The logic behind the idea that economic liberalization and democracy are mutually reinforcing has run its course in Latin America. Even in the more developed nations of the continent, such as Chile and Argentina, widespread rights abuses continue to plague civil society. Although the tools and the knowledge for capitalist exploitation were offered by the consolidated democracies of the west, the role of a comprador class within Latin American cannot be understated.
Another important issue raised by this article is the disconnect between multilateral institutions, such as the World Bank and the WTO, and the protection of human rights under international law. The author quotes dialogue between the UN Secretary General and the World Bank’s vice-president to reinforce that international trade regimes are not mandated to enforce human rights protection, but rather create the economic conditions necessary for their protection. Since enforcing human rights laws is clearly not their intended role, what is their obligation to cases of rights violations as a result of their policies? When governments allow their own industries to be privatized by foreign firms they are compromising their abilities to defend food sovereignty and uphold their own constitutional rights. The same problems are often true of more developed nations, but the weaknesses of most Latin American democracies compound the struggle and lead to a cementing of the status quo. Multilateral institutions should fully acknowledge their culpability, recognize state sovereignty over agriculture and partner with local governments to design less invasive and damaging economic policies.
Since the colonial encounter, the trends of economic and political manipulation have persisted throughout Latin America. Whereas the Empires of Europe were once to blame, it is now the forces of capitalist imperialism that continue the rape of human and natural resources across the continent. The anomaly of this predatory and insatiable system is that it continues to evolve in spite of our understanding of its consequences. In order to solidify the trajectory of neo-imperialism, its proponents in positions of power cultivate a distorted notion of progress while relying on the undersides of democracy, such as hyper-nationalism, voter apathy and corruption, to inhibit collective resistance. The design and values of this system are so inextricably woven into western culture that its dissolution presents an existential conflict for those who regale in its offerings.
Humanity is clearly witnessing another loss of innocence. With the colonial encounter began the subordination of the indigenous people in Latin America and today, largely through neo-liberal economic policies and political meddling, the erosion of indigenous culture, value and knowledge carries on at a frightening pace. In political organization, the autonomous character of indigenous societies has withered under the power of democracies behaving more like centralized autocracies. In natural resource management, cooperative land stewardship has had to yield to myopic corporate ideology. In regards to human rights, globalization shares the same hypocrisy as colonialism: while intended to civilize, create prosperity and equality, it has fostered violence, poverty and a widening disparity between the rich and poor. Humanity must enter a new era of consciousness where life takes precedence over wealth and the positive strengths of each culture are cultivated to their full potential and united to ensure our survival.
last301
posted by Spencer at 8:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home