The global order harms the poor. Thomas Pogge argues that the causes of global poverty are systemic, refuting the notion that the misery in poor countries are mostly self-induced. We, the developed world, are the architects of the global order and continue to run it to the detriment of the global poor. Hence, we have the responsibility to fix it. This order is comprised of economic and institutional parts. By examining both parts, we can then identify the causes of the problems and propose possible solutions. Global Economic Order
If you walked past a shallow pond and saw a child drowning in it, what would you do? Most would agree with Peter Singer’s intuition that we should wade into the pond to rescue the child.[1] However, what if you are the one who pushed the child into the water in the first place? Perhaps if you do nothing further, the child might even be able to rescue herself but instead, you wade in to push the flailing child under the water while others watch from the sidelines, some even applauding, some stifling their yawns, but none trying to stop you. The child represents the global poor and Thomas Pogge argues that not only is the developed world not helping them, we are actively harming them. We are not just failing to execute our positive moral duties in alleviating their suffering but fail to carry out our negative duty not to harm.[2]
Pogge explains how the developed world has created the global poor. Firstly, we pushed them into the water by inflicting “grievous wrongs” on them through colonisation, genocide and slavery, setting them back in their societal development.[3] Secondly, while we both “depend on a single natural resource base,” we use far more of it, leaving far less of it for them.[4] Thirdly, while we all live together in a single global economic order, this order is created primarily by the developed world for its own benefit.[5] Because of the imbalance in economic and hence negotiating power between the developed world and the poor countries, the structure of this global economic order, in the form of trade “agreements and treaties, investments, loans, patents, copyrights, trademarks, taxation, labour standards, environmental protection, use of seabed resources, [etc.]”[6] is skewed in favour of the developed world to the disadvantage of the poor countries. This order maintains and potentially worsens global economic inequality.[7] Even if we deny there is any direct harm done by the developed world, there is still counterfactual harm since there is a “feasible institutional alternative under which such severe and extensive poverty would not persist,” according to Pogge.[8] Since this is a systemic problem of an order created by us, to continue with business as usual is a “moral failure” and makes us culpable, since we are then actively “impoverishing, starving and killing […] by economic means” the global poor.[9]
Global Institutional Order
However, before we admit mea culpa, what if the wretched situation of the global poor is their own fault? Is not every society responsible for its own situation? John Rawls attributes the economic success of each country to its “political culture, […] religious, philosophical, and moral traditions [,…] industriousness and cooperative talents […and] population policy.”[10] If a country is ailing, it is because of subpar policies of their government, according to international bankers and economists surveyed by Pogge, who point at the success of the Asian tigers to support their claim.[11] Pogge’s response is that just because some countries have succeeded does not mean that all can since if every country tried to do the same as the Asian tigers at the same time, it would have competed away any profits.[12]
In addition, corrupt and oppressive governments compound the problem. Pogge explains why they are a result of the global institutional order. Regardless of the (lack of) support of their population or how they came to power, any group who controls the coercive power within a country is recognised internationally as the legitimate government.[13] Such recognition confers the international borrowing privilege which enables them to borrow money on behalf of their country and the international resource privilege (IRP), which enables them to sell off the country’s resources.
Both privileges help keep the incumbent government in power, enriching its officials personally and financing the purchases of weapons and soldiers to use against its own people.[14] Previous debts encumbers subsequent governments which remain on the hook for them, reducing their ability to implement change. In addition, the IRP incentivises foreigners to corrupt the country’s officials so that they can purchase resources on favourable terms.[15] The people of such countries can do little against their governments, since the power and military might belongs to the government, leading to the underfulfilment of their human rights.[16] To blame the people for the state of their country is akin to blaming victims for harm they have suffered, rather than the perpetrators.
Laura Valentini suggests an “autonomy” criterion to assess whether a duty of justice is owed to the poor countries: “An agent is under a duty of justice if and only if she has the ability to refrain from undermining the necessary conditions for others to lead autonomous lives.” To refrain, agents must be able to foresee the impact of their actions and are able to control their actions.[17] Pogge has pointed out the impact of the global world order. Going forward, the developed world can certainly foresee the consequences of its action. As the creator of the global order, it is able to control its actions, making it a matter of justice to refrain from harming the poor countries.
Conclusion
As Pogge has amply illustrated, the current global economic and institutional order harms the poor. The problems faced by the global poor are mostly systemic. We have created the system and continue to run it, hence making it our responsibility to fix it. Now that we have recognised the problem, if we continue to carry on our ‘business as usual’, we are culpable. We have to reform global trade policies to provide fairer terms to poor countries and figure out how to curtail the international borrowing and resource privileges of corrupt and oppressive governments. These already difficult tasks are made even harder since they require political will for reform from those who actually benefit from the current global order. Nonetheless, the recognition of the problem and our duty of justice is a crucial first step towards formulating solutions, with rising general awareness among the citizenry of both the developed and developing world providing the impetus for change.
Bibliography
Armstrong, Chris. Global Distributive Justice: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139026444.
Pogge, Thomas. “Priorities of Global Justice.” Metaphilosophy 32, Nos. 1/2 (2001).
———. World Poverty and Human Rights. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002.
Singer, Peter. “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 1, no. 3 (1972): 229–43.
Valentini, Laura. “Justice, Charity, and Disaster Relief: What, If Anything, Is Owed to Haiti, Japan, and New Zealand?” American Journal of Political Science 57, no. 2 (2013): 491–503.
[1] Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 1, no. 3 (1972): 231.
[2] Chris Armstrong, Global Distributive Justice: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 24, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139026444.
[3] Thomas Pogge, “Priorities of Global Justice,” Metaphilosophy 32, Nos. 1/2 (2001): 14.
[4] Pogge, 15.
[5] Pogge, 15.
[6] Pogge, 12.
[7] Pogge, 13.
[8] Thomas Pogge, World Poverty and Human Rights (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002), 199.
[9] Pogge, “Priorities of Global Justice,” 15.
[10] As cited by Pogge, 17.
[11] Pogge, 17.
[12] Pogge, 18.
[13] Pogge, 19.
[14] Pogge, 21.
[15] Pogge, 22.
[16] Pogge, 22.
[17] Laura Valentini, “Justice, Charity, and Disaster Relief: What, If Anything, Is Owed to Haiti, Japan, and New Zealand?,” American Journal of Political Science 57, no. 2 (2013): 496, 498.
No comments:
Post a Comment