Lost in Translation – “Feuchtgebiete” and Cultural Excuse March 2, 2009
The article in the Globe and Mail on the book “Feuchtgebiete” by Charlotte Roche is definitively too wonderful of a material for losses in translation to let it be.
One of my favorite passages (of the article) of literary critic turning grotesk in its cultural determinism is as follows:
“I don’t think we should be too quick to blame the Germans for this particular bit of pseudo-porn; Charlotte Roche is British by birth. This is just typical overcompensating expatriate behaviour. Germans love this kind of scatological thing and she’s trying to out-German them, poor thing. If history has taught us anything, it’s that no good can come of a foreigner trying to out-German the Germans. Not that she’s Austrian or anything, but it’s a pretty bad book.”
This line of argumentation is, to say the least, unique…
[Full article "Porn, pseudo-porn or just bad smut?" by ELIZABETH RENZETTI , TABATHA SOUTHEY and MICHAEL VALPY, Globe and Mail (27 February 2009) available under http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090227.wbkwetlands28/BNStory/globebooks/]
Human Rights as Global Regime November 1, 2008
It seems that the institutionalization of Human Rights (HR) that we know today developed over time under the very impression of peculiar incidents of atrocity and war. It was not until the end of the Second World War and under the impression of previously unimagined acts of inhumanity in form of the holocaust, extended prosecution and German war cruelties in Eastern Europe that nation states consented that is was in their own interest to develop and agree on a comprehensive and extensive Human Rights regime. The London Conference in June 1946 – the outcome of negotiations that had begun as early as in 1942 – laid out the design for an international system of international justice and normative order as exists today. In fact, the establishment of International Military Courts, the concept of crimes against humanity as well as the notion of global procedural justice under the rule of law, all these phenomena can be understood as the first steps towards the current institutional and normative HR regime architecture that comprises such prominent features as the UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948) or the International Criminal Court (ICC) (1998).Yet, the ideational foundations of the UN Declaration were not new; rather, they reached back to the 17th century and the program of humanism and enlightenment that made human rights logically conclude the ethical cosmopolitanism that underpins the Declaration.
Definitively, as Paul Kennedy pointed out in his book “Parliament of Man”, the UN Declaration of Human Rights since then greatly contributed to promoting Human Rights as idea as well as social practice on the national and international level. However,the idea of Human Rights – while being highly accepted as a normative order (value) in many contexts and minds worldwide – seems at the same time to remain highly contested as a practice in the international and domestic context. In this regard, it is not clear whether this is so despite or because of the increasing degree of international institutionalization and interaction.
Human Rights and International Relations
In this context, B.R.Tomlinson’s analysis of the so-called ‘Third World’ can be seen as an interesting contribution concerning the question of ethical cosmopolitanism in international relations and international institutions, and the contribution of the latter to the cause. On the basis of a historical account of the “Third World” as the outcome and example of the continued domination of certain nations of the ‘West’ over international discourse and institutions, Tomlinson concludes that we need to move beyond established criteria of assessing international relations and developments to finally develop a perspective of one instead of several worlds. Accordingly, the ethical cosmopolitanism immanent in HR makes a one world perspective a necessary precondition for its realization. Along with Tomlinson one can argue that only this perspective will make it be possible to write global history that accounts for the diversity of developments of different countries; the prevailing historical narrative that extrapolates the Rest of the World by mainly accommodating the ‘West’s’ narrative will on the contrary sustain notions of ideational and practical supremacy by some countries and institutions in the context of HR, and thereby in practice counteract criteria of equality and Kantian deontological ethics that actually build the normative kernel of the idea of human rights themselves.
Complementary to Tomlinson, Kristin S. Tassin focuses on the impact of the UN Human Rights Declaration in former colonial countries. Accordingly, the declaration had opened a new policy space for ex-colonial countries to constitute an alternative third world in the aftermath of the Second World War and with regard to the geopolitical dichotomy of the Cold War era. This amounted to the emergence of the non-alignment movement that aimed at advancing independent foreign policy, the domestic policy space, and the processes of nation building and national integration. The non-alignment movement put to life a new notion of territorial sovereignty by going beyond a mere negative self-interpretation within world politics. However, Tassin points out that the increase in political independence of ex-colonial countries was not met by existing structures of international economic governance. Rather, the contrary was/is the case. In fact, both articles (Tassin, Tomlinson) show the unwillingness of dominant powers in the international system to accommodate the demands for new institutions of global (economic) governance by the G77 countries. At the same time, the role of the UN as forum for ‘developing countries’ to exert pressure for change diminished since the 1970’s, and the 1980’s brought about an increased role of international institutions such as the World Bank, IMF or WTO whose policies were best characterized by decreasing domestic policy space via deregulation, by forcing ‘mono-economics’ as well as ‘political conditionality’ on to the people of ‘developing countries’. Thus, while the idea of Human Rights was a widely acknowledged value and along with it concepts of dignity and identity, at the same time the structural conditions that were enforced by the great powers after the Second World War remained in place, constraining the policy space and HR expansion (self empowerment) of the Third World’s governments and populaces.
The Global and Local Dilemma of HR
Out of the above, one can conclude that over the last four decades the highly ideal Human Rights regime in the context of the international realm missed to account for the question of changes and differences in political and socio-economic development. This yielded a ‘destructive dilemma by design’ according to which the institutionalized HR regime established and continuously sustains the existence of ‘morally supreme’ states over others in practice; and it brought a prioritization of certain HR articles over others, instead of moving on towards a human centered focus on development. If we look for example at the R2P-justification narrative that is based on HR, it seems problematic as it misses issues of political and economic marginalization as HR violations. Yet, this holistic HR perspective would be needed for the prevention of conflict as well as analysis of conflict. In this regard the establishment of an institutionalized global norm to some extent counter runs local developments by (a) helping to mask interests of states that have the structural as well as productive (norm generating) power; (b) in turning HR into a Top-Down endeavor.
Literature
B. R. Tomlinson, “What was the Third World?,” Journal of Contemporary History, 38, 2, 2003, 307-321.
Nuremberg Trial Excerpts: http://web.pdx.edu/~kinsella/nuremberg.pdf
Kristin S. Tassin, “’Lift Up your Head, My Brother’: Nationalism and the Genesis of the Non-Aligned Movement,” Journal of Third World Studies, 23, 1, 2006, 147-168.
UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
Power and Governance: The Issue of Genetically Modified Organisms and Food October 27, 2008
Since the 1970s, and up until today, there exist two highly contrastive and different narratives concerning the emergence and particularly the ‘utility’ of genetically modified organisms or food (GMO/GMF), and more important the implications of this technology in view of power and governance issues on the international level. The following is a summary of key ideas prevalent in the literature on this topic (literature list at the bottom).
Power and Governance
When looking at the issue of GMOs from the perspective of international relations and governance, the literature suggests that the contrastive positions (pro or con GMOs) on the issue find their country wise equivalence in two countries, namely the US and the EU. At the same time, other potential host countries, i.e. the developing world that might be greatly affected by the impact of introducing GMOs into their environments remain largely excluded from the debate and power struggle over this issue.
Accordingly, the power struggle over proliferation or prevention of GMOs is strongly driven by actors such as the EU consumers, the European Commission (environmental department), US corporations, US Government, as well as the EU’s and US’ converging interests as main exporters (e.g.TRIPS). The obvious misrepresentation of certain interests, or better: the underpinning North-South divide and Corporation-Farmer divide is perspective- and system- related. It is to be found with regard to actual R&D activities in the field of agricultural knowledge for development and stretches as far as concerning bargaining power domestically, within the WTO (on issues of IPR, UPOV and/or sui generis systems) or the establishment of alternative institutional governance systems.
It seems that the power struggle as well as the representational divide, all of these phenomena hint at the complex of problems that intrinsically accompany the governing structures of genetically modified seeds and agricultural biotechnology. – Which raises the question, at what point the interests of farmers are accounted for in this governance structure?
“Food fights” and “IPR battles”
After Borlaug and his colleagues, the proliferation of GMOs is a “moral obligation” towards poor farmers. According to this line of argumentation, GMOs in form of genetically modified cash crops do not only bring wealth to the farmers in poor countries but also are an adequate agricultural instrument to eliminate hunger and starvation in poor countries. Based on this assumption, Paarlberg describes a “global food fight” that takes place between the US (corporate power) and the EU (environmentalists, consumers), whereas the preventive attitude of the EU in view of GMOs clearly is interpreted as an act of ignorance that goes directly against the interests of poor farmers. While the exclusion of poor farmers’ interests in the power struggle over governing seeds and agricultural biotechnology might be a correct assessment of the situation, Paarlberg’s conclusion that the interest of the poor farmer per se is the introduction of GMOs is simply false and only founded on his own scientific belief system.
While Borlaug et al. tell the story that the EU is preventing wealth and poverty reduction of poor farmers by preventing the proliferations of GMOs, Falkner on the contrary interprets the “global food fight” as the attempt of the US to force its interests on to poor farmers that (would) have to suffer from it. For Falkner, the prevention of the proliferation of GMOs is a success story, being the result of international cooperation of the EU and developing countries directed against the hegemon in the international system, i.e. the US. He points at the fact that from the beginning, developing countries were sceptical of GMOs, demanding regulations and liabilities as regards risk and (social) costs related to the introduction of this technology into socio-economic environment of their countries.
Complementary to Falkner’s argumentation concerning the composition and implication of the “global food fight”, yet from a different perspective, does de la Pierrere detect an IPR battle underpinning the global food fight in the area of GMOs. This battle is fought between (poor) communities whose interests are institutionally represented by the biodiversity convention (CBD) versus corporate power whose interests are institutionally represented by WTO (TRIPS or UPOV regimes). De la Perriere’s focus on the regimes themselves and respective country preferences, allows for a detection of powerful actors as well as interest as this focus makes it possible to circumvent the normative dispute over solutions that prevails in the other readings. Moreover, his assessment shows losers and winners of each regime, generated by the specific regime’s different inherent implications regarding profit and power distribution & allocation. Accordingly, the convention (on biodiversity) focuses on sovereignty, the equitable sharing of profits, the contribution of communities to diversity, the immanent value of traditional knowledge as well as communal knowledge systems; TRIPS/UPOV, on the other hand, implies reduction of genetic variety, the empowerment of the breeder (corporation) over the farmer, the clear separation of farming and breeding that yields a complete commodification of agricultural activity, and the related loss of traditional knowledge and practices on the local level for the benefit of, the dependence on, and the usurpation (of this knowledge) by actors in the global realm.
Outlook
It seems that the power distribution within the international governance system (WTO over CBD) so far clearly favors pro-GMO countries , and especially the US who pushes towards tearing down any barriers to trade in GMO. By limiting the issue of GMO to an issue of trade liberalization, these countries have the systemic and defining advantage that the international system still works best in the economic realm (WTO). This clearly reveals the underpinning problem that existing international economic governance structures are so far not equally met by powerful political governance structures that validate normative discourse on an issue such as GMO on an equal footing and have far reaching regulatory consequences that would allow for diversity by either excluding an issue from the economic realm, or by creating alternative governance structures.
Literature
Norman Borlaug, “Biotech Can Feed 8 Billion”, in New Perspectives Quarterly, 24 (4), 2004, pp.97-102.
Robert Paarlberg, “The Global Food Fight”, Foreign Affairs, vol.79, no.3 (May-June 2000), pp.24-38.
Robert Ali Brac de la Perriere and Franck Seuret, “The Battle Over Intellectual Property Rights”, in R. A. Brac de la Perriere and F. Seuret, Brave New Seeds (Zed: London, 2000), pp.89-112.
Robert Falkner, “International Cooperation against the Hegemon: The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety”, in The International Politics of Genetically Modified Food: Diplomacy, Trade and Law (Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), pp.15-33.
Gegen Seehofers Plaene zu Genmais protestieren October 13, 2008
Es geht um die Sicherung von Ernaehrungssoveraenitaet sowie -sicherheit! Und ganz nebenbei auch darum, dass die momentane Landwirtschaftspolitik an den Interessen der Bevoelkerung vorbeisteuert, insbesondere in den Bereichen genetisch modifizierten Saatgutes und Konsumentenschutzes.
Mehr unter http://www.campact.de/gentec/home
sowie unter http://www.campact.de/gentec/info/log
Peace and Security: Global Governance and Antecendents October 6, 2008
When studying the history of ideas that we today tend to associate with the term global governance, especially in the area of peace and security, it seems that many of these ideas that have become common knowledge actually refer back to theoretical concepts and frameworks provided by Hugo Grotius and Immanuel Kant. In particular, their thoughts on international law and a system of sovereign states appear to have contributed to the normative foundation of a development who’s very prominent historical accounts so far has for instance been the establishment of the Peace of Westphalia (1648), and more recently the founding of the League of Nations.
While Grotius and Kant’s writings greatly reflect the historical context of their time regarding the style of writing, reference systems, or underpinning assumptions, both authors have in common that at the same time they tended to ‘transcend’ their time in the sense that the universality of their ideas went beyond predominant perceptions and realities.
According to Kant, Perpetual Peace in the sense of global and lasting peace among sovereign states is achievable or most likely under a federal system of free republican states, whereas the republican state forms the core and necessary precondition of this pacific federation. After Kant, a republican state system is crucial as it allows on the one hand for economic exchange among nations which will help to overcome hostilities and bring prosperity; on the other hand, a republican form of the state will decrease the likelihood to refer to war as political instrument in the international realm, since it is not in the interest of the majority of people. By republican state, Kant means a form of governance that is characterized by a separation of power of the legislative and the executive branch of government . Same as Hobbes in Leviathan, Kant presumes that the state of (human) nature is the state of war. However, Kant comes to a different conclusion. Being a protagonist within the movement of Enlightenment, he beliefs in the rational potential of humanity that allows it to develop beyond the state of nature towards a more peaceful form of coexistence. The willing subjugation of the domestic, international and cosmopolitan sphere under the rule of law (jus civitates, jus gentium and cosmopolitan right), is hence a possible result of humanity’s rational power. Moreover, it would be the precondition for peaceful coexistence on the domestic, international and cosmopolitan level. For Kant, the state is “a society of human beings”. Its sovereignty is given by the people and needs to be respected by the other states that join in this system of equal sovereigns.
Apart from inequality and hegemony in the international realm, both of which cannot be justified after Kant as they inherently foster war, peace and the sovereignty of the state is endangered by referring to states as things rather than moral persons, by standing armies, as well as by the financial dependency (credit) of state on sources within or external of the state that undermine its sovereignty by making it very vulnerable to mistakes of other actors. In general, the system at all levels should be characterized by “juridicial freedom”, “juridicial equality” and “lawful coercion”, implying that everybody has the right to only adhere to laws he consented to and that laws apply to everyone equally. Otherwise, the only way for states to defend their right is in fact war, which again is not apt to defend a right . Overall, only legal coercion can re-direct human nature to be peaceful out of self-interest.
While Kant focuses on right and sovereignty from the perspective of sustainable peace, Grotius in On the Law of War and Peace (Ch 1) on the other hand looks at the question whether there are just wars and what determines the justice of wars. According to Grotius, war is not necessarily related to anarchy but on the contrary there is a lawfulness even concerning war. War is defined as “the state of contending parties, considered as such”. It be morally justified as in the case of self defense. The normative basis for just and unjust is to be found in an assumed universal law of nature that is part of human reason and nature, and gives authority to customary law. Particularly interesting – when looking at the current global governance structure in the area of peace and security – is the notion, that war is the outcome of structure rather than anarchy, that there might be cases of war that can be called by negative definition “just” (“not unjust wars”), and that war might be a means towards achieving peace. Especially in view of UN Missions underpinned by the Responsibility to Protect- Concept and the Chapter 8 of the UN Charter, both of which reflect a re-definition of sovereignty and intervention (just war), it seems that Grotius idea of lawfulness of war is ever more present today.
The actuality of concepts of Kant and Grotius raises the question what is new about the idea of global governance. When looking at the history of ideas, it appears that it is not the ideas underpinning the current system and discourse on global governance that are new. Rather, one could argue that there is a historical moment of re-interpretation and re-weighing of a prevalent set of ideas or assumptions that is taking place – be it in form of the ‘democratic peace theorem’, the call for new forms of governance in the face of an assumed new degree of globalization, or the re-definition of sovereignty in view of the state’s responsibility to protect.
Literature:
Immanuel Kant, Zum Ewigen Frieden (1795).
Hugo Grotius, On the Rights of War and Peace (Book 1)
Fachtagung “Interkulturelle Handlungskompetenz an Fachhochschulen” – 9./10. Oktober 2008 ! July 19, 2008
Am 9. und 10. Oktober wird in Wilhelmshaven die Fachtagung „Interkulturelle Handlungskompetenz an Fachhochschulen – Perspektiven und Dimensionen für die Lehre“ („Fachtagung IKHK“) stattfinden.
Die „Fachtagung IKHK“ richtet sich an alle, die mit interkulturellem Handeln, inter-kultureller Kommunikation und interkulturellen Begegnungssituationen an Hochschulen befasst sind oder sich in Zukunft damit intensiver befassen wollen.
Bei der Tagung besteht die Möglichkeit zur Präsentation von Lehrkonzepten, Lehrmodellen und Lehrerfahrungen. Detaillierte Informationen zum „Call for Papers“ oder zur Teilnahme finden Sie unter www.ikhk-tagung.de.
27.10., 12 Uhr: Solidaritätsdemonstration mit Burma in Berlin October 18, 2007
Wir rufen auf zur Solidaritätsdemonstration am 27. Oktober in Berlin.
Treffpunkt 12 Uhr am Lustgarten, Nähe S-Bahn Hackescher Markt. Lauf bis
13 Uhr zum Brandenburger Tor am Pariser Platz: Kundgebung.
Aufrufer:
Asienhaus Burma Intitiative
Burma Buero Germany
Burma Aktion
Koelner Buddhismus Zentrum
Burma Aktionsgruppe, Berlin
Polish-Burmese Solidarity
Burma: The Credibility of the UN Security Council is Put at Stake October 13, 2007
The current undecisiveness of the UN Security Council concerning the developments in Burma mirrors the inability of the Council to act according to its mission and uphold the normative underpinnings of the UN Charter.
Even though there has been great hope since the end of the Cold War in the 90’s that the time of stagnation might be over and that a time of constructive cooperation has finally come, Burma could be the final turning point from a brief intermezzo of hope to a backlash into united stalemate. Looking at the fragmentation of national interests in the UN Security Council in the light of exlusively distributed vetopower, the calls for a reform, and especially a democratization of the UN could not be any louder than in these days of global despair over the brutal abolition of a peaceful strive by the burmese people for a way out of decades of suppression, fear and tremendous human rights violations.
A UN that misses to react appropriately on this issue will loose its credibility as valuable organisation in the promotion of world peace, once more and very profound.
