One World: The Ethics of Globalisation

Review for Times Higher Education Supplement

February 2003

Books on globalisation proliferate but they nowadays rarely enlighten. They still play the all for or against game with globalisation, often take a narrow economistic view, or bang on about some ecological fad of the author. Peter Singer has however written a book that is rich in thought, broad in its coverage of issues and thoughtful as well as thought provoking. In confronting us with the several aspects of globalisation as they connect with issues of equity and justice, Singer raises as many questions as he answers but his book will be useful for starting and sustaining debates. But enough of praise; there are many problems along the way as we read Singer.

Singer starts with the cliché that since we live in a global village our ethical standards should conform to global rather than national or feudal standards. He quotes Marx’s famous dictum about handmill giving us a feudal society and the steam mill the capitalist one. So the jet and the internet gives us a global society. But as Marx would say so what. We still are divided by class- by income, wealth, opportunities, not to say race, ethnicity, religion, gender. Proximity may breed contempt as much as a feeling of community. To say that we live in a village or a society is not to presume harmony or even fellow feeling. Villages may be cute to people living in cute little settlements in developed countries from where they commute to well paid jobs in the nearest (though not too near) cities ; villages of like minded people with similar incomes.

But villages and societies are theatres of conflict in real life. Any Indian village even today has areas marked out for untouchables; you know who is rich and who is poor, who eats with whom and who will be shunned like the plague. Villages are murderous places be they in Serbia, Cyprus, China or even Northern Ireland. There has to be a basis for fellow feeling which has to be more than just a warm dose of philosophy.

Singer is aware of this problem. As he takes up the various issues of the environment, trade. Humanitarian law, and global justice in his chapters, he constantly comes up against the question of the basis for solidarity. After all as he quotes the Victorian utilitarian philosopher Sidgwick we should be good to our kin and may be even those who serve us and may be “ to those of our own race more than to black or yellow men, and generally to human beings in proportion to their affinity to ourselves “ (p.153) The issue is not of white racism; for a black or yellow person the same applies with some substitution. We care the most for ourselves and then for our nearest and dearest, perhaps for our kith and kin but least for those distant from us in blood and neighbourhood terms

Singer wants a better world, a world which is less unequal, more other-regarding, more just. He discusses global warming, WTO, the reform of the UN, the structure of international humanitarian law in detail and has telling points. Thus in discussing the WTO he not only says all the obvious things about the fairness of trade but follows it up with a careful discussion of the trends in poverty as well a sin inequality. Poverty has reduced in the two decades of globalisation, most notably in Asia but as to inequality we have to say the jury is still out. But his real contribution comes when he questions the right of governments to trade away the resources of a country for capital imports or some other financial return. He asks when can we say that a government has legitimacy in doing so. This in turn raises questions about democracy. So trade has to take place on a basis of voluntary exchange between legitimate political entities. So a Mobutu or a Marcos or a Trujillo has no right to sign away resources. Though how you stop them from doing so is a moot question.

This is because we may live in a global society but most of us live within this society in blocks called states and the international system is besotted by the notion of sovereignty. Indeed many who oppose globalisation insist that a country has a right to treat its citizens as it sees fit . Any outside interference by the Great Powers , especially the USA, is immoral. Witness the unease about North Korea and Iraq. Sovereignty allows you to starve and kill your people. The UN has a Charter which enshrines this logic and interference runs into legalistic obstacles, e.g. a veto by any of the five Permanent Members [P5] of the Security Council. There has been some breach in this doctrine during the 1990s but the when push comes to shove, the UN often fails. It failed in Rwanda and if we had waited for UN Resolution in Kosovo Milosevic would still be ethnically cleansing without any problem.

Singer is troubled by this and pushes the critique of the UN to say that it is undemocratic itself in giving excessive powers to the Permanent Members. We need some popular representation as well as Qualified Majority Voting to replace the vetoes. But again the question is who will bell the cat. Who has the power to reform the veto system since the P5 can bloc any reform proposal by using their veto ? Since we have enshrined the Territorial ( often mislabelled Nation ) State in our international relations, the Sidhwick morality translates as saying that we should care about our fellow citizens and not foreigners. How many of us noticed the seven dead in Columbia shuttle disasters in the UK unlike in Israel, India or the US which had their citizens or kin among the seven. Large Earthquake in Chile Not many British Dead is still a typical headline in our newspapers as well as our heads.

Singer thinks that citizens of the rich countries especially the USA have a duty to be more generous to the developing countries people. He excoriates the US record in foreign aid- 0.1 % rather than the UN target of 0.7 % of GDP in aid [UK is only about 0.32 but rising ]. Even private giving in US for international causes is not remarkable- only 0.04 %, i.e. less than the official level. And yet US citizens when polled think the US gives 20 % but should give only 5 or 10 % some fifty to hundred times more generous. But he omits to ask how much they give to domestic causes. After all my altruism may only extend to “ my own “ poor and not to the foreign poor though they may be poorer. The truth is our modern democratic polities are mean even to their own poor so how can we expect them to be better to the rest ? After all is poverty not our problem too ?

Adam Smith says somewhere in Theory of Moral Sentiments that I feel more if my finger is pricked than about an earthquake in China. Economics as moral philosophy or social science has always been chary of relying on altruism as a reliable motive for human behaviour. No doubt people are other minded and indeed ought to be more so. But you cannot fashion societies let alone schemes of reform on that assumption. This is why trade is a powerful incentive for betterment; it is mutually beneficial. Even though the gains from trade may be unevenly distributed, neither side can lose from trade. All trade is from this point of view fair.

Globalisation is nothing but the resurgence of capitalism in late 20th century. As foreign direct investment spreads to the poor countries of Asia , many of the people living there quit their life of rural idiocy and join sweat shops in towns. This may seem horrible to moralists of NGOs but is betterment for those working there. No doubt a concern for their rights in developed countries will price them out of their jobs if we allow such “reforms”. Thus does altruism of the rich often kill the poor by kindness. After all we did not find Europeans marching in their Social Forum in Florence against the vast subsidies to European farmers who overproduce and dump food on poor countries.

But then that is what we should expect and build on. People and nations will pursue their narrow self interest. What will still bring about higher standards of living in poor countries is not altruism or aid but flows of capital seeking higher profits aligned with cheap labour as long as the products of their marriage are allowed access to rich country markets. It would be better if there was greater competition among the world’s industries and no soft regime of intellectual property rights which allows pharmaceutical companies of rich countries to translate their monopoly power into exorbitant prices for retroviral drugs. It would be better if USA and EU did not protect their agricultures to the tune for around $ 500 billion Forget foreign aid; just stop this crude waste of money.

The economy can operate on basis of minimal altruism and indeed be better for it. Where Singer is on better grounds is in power relations- humanitarian law, UN reform. But here individual morality is irrelevant. It is raison d’etat i.e. power relations which prevail. Of course we ought to be better. We should be cooperative. But politics does not have its Adam Smith yet and no simple spring of action which leads to actions which are mutually beneficial. Power has a zero sum logic. If the powerful forebear then their capacity to harm may be contained. They may even sign up to Treaties and Covenants. But if they do not abide them all you can do is to stop them if they are weak or wring your hands if they are powerful. Hence Kosovo can be prevented and perhaps Iraq will be invaded. But do not expect China to get a summons about its human rights record nor will USA be asked about its capital punishment practices which violate human rights.

It would be nice if the world were like Peter Singer wants it. But Our World is not One World. Not yet.

The content of these pages may not reproduced in any form without the express permission of the author.