Much has been said about globalization, its pros and cons, its promises and failures, and how it may or may not help developing countries to follow the development trajectories charted by those who have already achieved the distinction of being officially called ‘ developed nations’. Debates have centered on the sheer economics of it: the merits or otherwise of a market economy based on international trade and investment, with resource allocation mediated by international free market forces. In more ways than one, globalization is not new: even before Europeans rode the high tide of globalization, Chinese and Indian traders dominated the globalized marketplace of the pre-medieval world.
There are three important factors that are overlooked in most discourses about the current round of globalization, yet these have the potential to have a significant impact on the lives of billions of people in poor countries that globalization has simply passed. for high. First, when Britain and the United States led their brand of globalization in the 18th to 20th century, they ensured that they were not ‘globalized’ themselves: they developed their home market and the ability of the masses to play their part in the market. This helped broaden and deepen the effects of globalization by ensuring that the benefits were not limited to the rich and wealthy who went ‘globalizing’. Unfortunately, that is not happening in many of the poorest countries now, where millions of people remain disenfranchised and too unable to play their role in a global marketplace.
The second most important departure from previous globalizations, and perhaps the one that offers the greatest prospects for the poor and dispossessed, has been in the concept of global rights, especially in global policy regimes on rights to development and implementation. of humanitarian laws. . Just as the current chapter of globalization brought the world closer in terms of free market mechanisms and unrestricted capital flows, it also brought with it the realization that the basic rights to protection, assistance and development, enshrined in different conventions of international human rights and humanitarian law, needed to be global. application. These are often referred to as second-generation rights that imply universal rights of minimal welfare, as opposed to first-generation rights that relate to individual liberty and freedom for which a universally agreed ideology has not yet emerged. You cannot have economic growth and prosperity for a few, while turning a blind eye to the denial of basic rights to life and protection for a vast majority of the world. The Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and the reshaping of the international aid architecture following the Monterrey consensus are part of this global agenda. The MDGs are not just wish lists for donor agencies or governments, but reflect commitments to ensure that governments comply in the first instance with various instruments under international humanitarian law and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966 ).
For the first time in human history, the language of rights entered the framework of debates and policy formulation at the national and international level in the last decade. Economic, social and cultural rights include a number of claims, such as claims for social security and a certain standard of living, including claims for adequate food, clothing, housing, medical care, sanitation, education, etc. Prior to this, despite the fact that governments agreed and ratified various conventions and protocols, these hardly provided a solid reference point when it came to implementation, especially in developing countries. Introducing rights into development discourse recognized that access to good healthcare is not just something good government should provide, but is a right of villagers who never see their health workers visit the center primary care in ruins for application that. Also, when the devastating tsunami hit the Indian Ocean area, affected families in tsunami-affected areas had a Correct receive assistance in the form of food, shelter and livelihoods from national governments and from international humanitarian agencies such as the UN, international and national non-governmental organisations. It is no longer about ‘good government’ doing its chosen subjects a favor, or a poor woman surviving on the generosity of a big-hearted non-governmental organization (NGO). There are rights, duties (duty of care) and obligations that come into the equation. Thanks to globalization that unleashed this global thinking.
This has been the most significant achievement of globalization: the recognition of individuals as ‘subjects’ of international law and, therefore, of international interest, and the inclusion in the development equation of economic, social and cultural aspects. Rights that national and international development processes should strengthen.
Thanks to globalization, global media and public opinion, the renewed commitment to meeting the basic needs of life and livelihoods as a matter of law has meant that governments can no longer hide behind the curtain of sovereignty. and still maintain the facade of a nation that tramples on people’s rights and freedoms. China might get away with the Tiananmen massacre in 1989, but Chinese businesses and the Chinese government would shudder to think what would become of their global dreams if the same thing happened in the 21st century. It is once again globalization that, by taking advantage of the public scrutiny of war crimes, now allows international governance to bring the perpetrators of crimes against humanity before the International War Crimes Tribunal.
Finally, it is once again globalization that has flattened the world by democratizing technology. That you and I, and billions of others, can communicate in real time, even when separated by a distance of tens of thousands of kilometers, and that we ordinary people can have the same access to vital information as in the past would have been transmitted. for us from those who rule and govern us, it means that each of us now has tremendous power to influence the world. After the earthquake in Haiti, we saw that social media (Facebook, Twitter, Digg, Myspace, to name a few) played a vital role in bringing to light the reality and gravity of the situation through numerous stories and eyewitness accounts. eyepieces when the situation began. developing from day one, even where aid agencies were unable to reach affected communities. Five years ago, when the tsunami hit Asia, we relied on big newspapers and TV channels to bring us stories, sometimes late or only covering areas that TV cameras could reach. After the earthquake in Haiti, through the millions of blogs and microblogs, we saw millions of concerned citizens around the world expressing their solidarity with the victims. Through these, we also saw a broader and more mature depiction of the unfolding crisis: apart from the destruction and catastrophic damage, we also saw the challenges in delivering any rescue or relief operations, the lack of infrastructure to deliver relief and why aid was slow to reach affected communities, real-time stories of what the humanitarian response was or was not doing. We were no longer solely dependent on the news that governments, the established media and aid agencies were giving us. That was a remarkable transformation in a short span of five years.