Warwick Global Development Society
Wgds
2012-2013
President:
Asli Sepil
Editor:
Maria Eugenia Giraudo
Members:
Adrien Askmo
Clara Schlotheuber
Eva Doya Le Besnerais
Kushi Gujral
Lisa Jörke
Malissa Mistry
Zeynep Saribas
The UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK
A Word from the President: Achieving the Impossible
Welcome all! On behalf of the Warwick Global Development Society, I
would like to welcome you to the first edition of our newsletter of
2012/2013 academic year. We hope you will enjoy it.
As postgraduate students of international development, various
questions relating to development have been occupying our thoughts.
One of the most striking of all is: ‘Why has there been so little progress towards development?’. Many of the
world’s citizens in developing countries continue to lack even the most fundamental goods and opportunities.
Despite repeated promises and efforts towards poverty reduction, the actual number of people living in
poverty has in fact increased by 100 million in the last decade of 20 th century. This occurred while the total
world income grew by an average of 2.5 percent annually (Stiglitz,
2003). Due to ecological degradation, people living in extreme poverty
are now even more vulnerable, as per resources such as food, energy and
water becoming more scarce. Consequently, we often find ourselves
wondering, as suggested by the comic above, whether countries of the
South will ever be developed.
I recently watched a speech by Robert Sapolsky, Professor of Biology at
University of Stanford, on the uniqueness of humankind. In his speech,
he mentions an important character within us that is not seen in any
other creature of nature: our motivation that derives from the
impossible. Human beings are gaining strength and will to do something
from irrefutable evidence that it cannot be. Harder this contradiction is,
more an individual takes it as a proof that it must be possible. According to Sapolsky, this is the most defining
and most important element of who we are. This gives us a peculiar power. This gives us power to change the
unchangeable.
The more challenging it gets to change the world for better, the clearer it gets that we must. The harder it
gets to achieve development, the more willing we must be. And the good news is, we will gain our strength
from our simplest characteristic: being a human.
All who would like to invest with us in this purpose are welcome to join our society. As WGDS, we will
continue having our weekly discussions and movie screenings. Also, with the support of the module tutors,
Shirin Rai and Ian Pirie, and students of Theories and Issues in International Development, we will hold a
development symposium on 12 March 2013. If you would like to become a member, participate in our
weekly discussions, or attend to our movie screenings or symposium, please do not hesitate to contact us at
our email address:
Asli Sepil – President – a.sepil@warwick.ac.uk
Maria Eugenia Giraudo – Editor – m.e.giraudo@warwick.ac.uk
Thanks to all who contributed to this newsletter!
Asli Sepil
Volume 9, Number 1
FEBRUARY 2013
In this issue:
Who cares about caring?
2
5
By Asli Sepil
The Arab Spring and Democracy Promotion
efforts from the West
14
By Eva Doya Le Besnerais
By Zeynep Saribas
Human Rights Regime: What is there not to
love?
11
By Malissa Mistry
By Lisa Jörke
Democracy: Necessary but not Sufficient for
Development?
Rio +20: More of the same?
8
Towards a ‘positive’ definition of food
security
By Maria Eugenia Giraudo
17
2
WHO CARES ABOUT CARING?
Who cares about caring?
Lisa Jörke, MA in International Studies and East Asia
Christmas is the time of the year when the everyday hustle slows down a little, families reunite,
and everybody overeats. It is also the time of the year when posters of aid organisations pave the
subway stations and we are reminded that in the middle of our merry wastefulness, many
people do not have enough to eat. They make us feel grateful for what we have, and give us
solidarity with those less privileged. Hopefully, people within the Western world will rethink
their lavish lifestyles and do their bit to reduce hunger in the world. Yet individual perspectives
may not give the full picture of the global poverty challenge; poverty is not only about what
everyone of us consumes, but also about the system each of us sustains. A system in which the
EU and the United States flood African markets with foodstuffs that are highly subsidised and
therefore so cheap they destroy both the business and the existence of farmers in the Third
World. A system in which land in Africa and Southeast Asia is bought up by private investors to
grow biofuel or export crops, while the local population does not have enough to eat. It is hard
to imagine that the members of our society would actively support such repressive terms of
trade and such exploitative business. Yet in our tacit
tolerance, we let this state of inequality prevail. One of the
“It takes three for
reasons why developing countries are denied the right for
self-sustained food supply is due to the profit hunger of big
inequality:
agrarian corporations. Another, because we do not put
the oppressors, the
pressure on the European policymakers to reduce agrarian
oppressed, and those
subsidies and instead support farmers in Africa and
who ignore what is hapelsewhere to improve their seeds, cultivation methods and
technology. It takes three for inequality: The oppressors,
the oppressed, and those who ignore what is happening.
WARWICK
GLOBAL
DEVELOPMENT
SOCIETY
THE
UNIVERSITY OF
WARWICK
This is not to say that we consciously intend to hurt the poorest in the world. In fact, the
damage is done in the light of unawareness by large parts of our society. We are not aware
because issues of malnutrition and starvation are just not tangible in the world we live in. Born
into one of the wealthy countries of the industrialised North, we are blessed with an indefinite
right to stay here for the rest of our lives, which are presumably going to go by comparatively
easily and comfortably. When we take a look at our watches, we do not think about one African
child under ten years dying of starvation every five seconds. We do not think about it because it
is far away. We have never known any of these children and we probably never will. The global
hunger catastrophe is not visible for us if we prefer not to see it. And reminders in the media are
scarce. How many articles about global poverty do we find amidst news of bickering EU
leaders, US budget struggles and a nuclear North Korea?
As Professor James Brassett from the University of Warwick recently stated, reports of war and
violence seem to have an appalling effect on us, while the fact that many more people die of
hunger and malnutrition does not. His claim seems justified: Google searches on hunger,
starvation and poverty amount to roughly 750 million results combined, while the search for the
3
word ‘war’ alone reaches over two billion. It is the
extreme cases of brutality—like the shooting in
Newtown or the gangrape in India—that are covered
in the media, not the inhumanity and inconsideration
that cause the deaths of many of the poorest and
weakest on our planet. And what kind of a story
would it make if in the end everyone is the bad guy?
For writers and readers alike, it is easier to put the
blame of inhumanity on one person or institution
rather than to acknowledge the creeping carelessness,
the indifference and passivity that lead to such
disasters as the global hunger catastrophe. Because
poverty is in fact a much more diffuse issue, an issue
in which everyone, including people in the
developing countries, has a small share of
responsibility. The difference being that the poorest
on the planet, for whom everyday is a struggle, have
no voice in the institutions that uphold global
injustice. As citizens in a democratic society with
considerably higher disposable capital, increased
mobility, and stronger influence on our political
leadership, we can do much more to achieve justice
than a poor farmer in sub-Saharan Africa. Yet doing
so requires getting up from our cosy armchairs. It
means a long-term commitment to a frustrating
objective that will not be fulfilled during our lifetime.
But does this mean that we should not try? Surely,
the global food supply is a complex issue. In an area
that has long been dominated by agricultural
corporations, the financial sector and even
international organisations such as the World Bank, it
is difficult to keep track of the exchanges and
subsidiaries and of all the small deals that contribute
to the large humanitarian mess of hunger and
poverty. Nonetheless, as we readily blame our
national politicians for their naivety in dealing with
global finance, we likewise need to blame ourselves
for turning a blind eye to starvation.
Our passivity towards global poverty proves how
readily we can turn a blind eye to a problem we do
not fully comprehend. But it is also part of a deeper,
underlying problem: that we fail to sympathise with
the weakest and the poorest on our planet. It shows
how willing we are to distance ourselves from others,
and how feeble our conception of a global community
is. In his article “Rich and Poor” the famous
philosopher Peter Singer rightly argues that distance
ought not to be an argument that justifies reluctance
to help the poor. (1) I agree with Singer, yet his
argument strikes me as unrealistic. What he
presupposes from every citizen is a conscious act of
reasoning. I would argue, however, that we distance
ourselves from others precisely to avoid such
contemplation of solidarity. In other words, we could
be sitting in the same boat, yet we are choosing to sit
in another. In fact, we are not even in the same boat
with many people in our own country, whose paths of
parental socialisation, to education and employment
possibilities, to social and economic autonomy never
meet ours. Even within our own nation, there exist
countless parallel societies. Does this mean that
Margaret Thatcher was ultimately right with her
notion that there is “no such thing as society”? (2)
Instead of invoking shared values, we tend to fall far
too easily into stereotypes of the lazy unemployed or
the impudent social spongers. Equally, we imagine a
female African farmer as little more than a faceless
number, as one of the 1.3 billion in abject poverty, (3)
as a powerless victim detached from our world. What
do we share with her—socialisation and experiences?
Hardly. Economic and political power? Not in the
slightest. A similar perception of empathy, solidarity
and humanity? Hopefully. Yet it is exactly humanity
that we so desperately lock away, because learning
about her life, listening to the story behind the
number might make us rethink our values and our
view on life. We would need to imagine being
hungry, even if we are well-fed. We would need to
empathise with someone poor, even if we are rich. All
this would make our everyday problems appear trivial
in comparison. Like the subway posters, it would
force us out of our comfort zone and make us realise
Who cares about caring?
4
that, however small, we affect the lives of others with
what we do and what we not do.
We are not going to become better simply because of
a poster in a subway station or a moralistic article such
as this one. If we did, many problems we are facing
today might not have occurred in the first place. An
idealised conception about humankind is rarely helpful
to address man-made problems. Yet recognising our
ignorance does not mean that we should dismiss it as
unalterable. Quite the contrary: I argue that it must be
the starting point to find a way to make everybody
responsible, to constantly nudge each other, roughly if
necessary, to take a stand in this issue. We must make
it unavoidable to each other to deal with inequality
and hardship and make it part of our lives and our
mindset. Because the fact that we do not care not only
harms the fundamentals of our democracy. If we lack
empathy in an immediate issue like poverty, we are
never going to effectively address other challenges
such as climate change, where the impact of our
current behaviour lies far in the future. No wonder we
prefer to retreat into our convenient bubble.
Notes
(1) in Peter Singer (ed.) (2011): Practical Ethics. 3rd. ed., New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 191–215.
(2) in an interview with the magazine Woman’s Own in September
1987
(3) Olinto, P. And Saavedra, J. (2012) An Overview of Global
Income Inequality Trends. Inequality in Focus. World Bank. 1 (1)
pp. 1-4
Lisa completed her BA in Japanese Studies at the University of Hamburg. She has
previously lived and studied in Osaka and recently commenced an MA programme in International Politics and East Asia at the University of Warwick. Her
research interests lie in the political economy and international relations of Pacific
Asia and – more recently – also with issues of international development and
global food supply.
Who cares about caring?
5
DEMOCRACY: NECESSARY BUT NOT SUFFICIENT
FOR DEVELOPMENT?
Democracy and Development
Zeynep Saribas, MA in International Development
WARWICK
GLOBAL
DEVELOPMENT
SOCIETY
THE
UNIVERSITY OF
WARWICK
Does democracy, for many the best form of government, also provide the best environment for
development? Is it possible to explain the highest standard of living in Western countries by the fact that
they have the most established democracies in the world? The answers appear to be quite
straightforward. Democracy through promoting freedom, imposing checks and balances and its other
amenities is conducive to development, prosperity and welfare. Not only does it promote growth, but
its stable structure also ensures that capital does not flee away from the country. Theory, thus, supports
the perception that democracy offers the most favourable environment for development. This article
will discuss the theories in favour of the democracy advantage, some of the results of empirical studies
and finally compare the outcomes.
“Does democracy, for many the Firstly, one might argue that the freedom, which is sine
qua non of democracy, leads to the most efficient
best form of government, also decisions. Through freedom of speech, freedoms of
association and free access to information, democratic
provide the best
regimes arrive at effective decision making processes.
environment for
The people are aware of what is happening in the
development?”
legislature, have their say in policy formulation and
influence the outcomes in line with their interests. The
prominent example of this is Right to Information Act (RTIA), which India enacted in 2005. With RTIA
any state institution, non-governmental organizations financed by government and even private
organizations that conduct business with government are obliged to provide the public with the
information on their activities. This both compels politicians to protect public interest and also gives the
democracy its legitimacy (1) . Thus, one might argue that amendments in economic policies combined
with RTIA brought about the economic growth and development that India enjoys (2). On the other
hand, China ranks higher than India almost in all development indicators although having severe
restrictions on Internet access. Without this significant prerequisite of democracy -freedom of access to
information- China could have achieved extensive economic and social development. What is the
rationale behind this distinction? At this point we should turn our attention to the importance of
economic policies in shaping a state’s development path. In terms of their political democracy and wellfunctioning markets, Jagdish Bhagwati neatly describes four different types of countries and explains the
reasons behind India’s previous underdevelopment and East Asian countries’ success. According to the
author, India falls under the category of non-market democracies, while China and other Far Eastern
countries belong to the market authoritarianisms category. India, during the 1990s – time period
analyzed by the author - was enjoying access to knowledge and information, and was increasing its
expertise on technology and innovations (3). However, state restrictions on economic policies hindered
development possible. On the contrary, freer domestic and international markets and “the freedom to
produce innovate and experiment with new technologies” observed in East Asian countries provided
them with substantial economic growth (4). After this period India underwent a series of changes geared
towards economic liberalization (5). With these adjustments, the country had reached its current level
of development. One might infer from this example that democratic regimes are conducive to the most
successful outcomes when supported by economic freedom.
6
Another significant aspect of democracy that is alleged to
more likely render development is its self-corrective
structure (6). Under democratic regimes, politicians are
well aware of the fact that they may not be reelected if they
fail to keep their campaign promises and thus protect their
reputation. Competition, reputation and monitoring, says
Donald Wittman, render politics as efficient as economic
markets by reducing opportunistic behavior(7). The fact
that society has the right to overthrow corrupt and
inefficient leaders and that politicians are constantly subject
to checks and balances means they are forced to act in
favour of the public interest. However, it might be argued
that an authoritarian leader might as well intend to maintain
his power through guarding public interest though he (or
she) does not have the fear of reelection. Although their
legitimacy does not come from the people themselves, the
regime may legitimize itself indirectly through delivering
what people want. If we look at it the other way around, is
it a leader under a democratic regime who does not have
the opportunity to be in the office any more likely to abuse
its current power? The reelection process, thus, might not
be relevant enough to support the idea that democracy
promotes development.
opportunities to amply fulfill their potential and
contribute to society. Free access to the Internet and free
media are the most fundamental components of this
characteristic. However, China illustrates an unexpected
case for this claim. Having those severe restrictions on the
Internet usage, China could still achieve a high growth
rate and development. I believe that this success could
have happened because China, with its huge population
and unsaturated economy, had the opportunity to develop
fast. In this era, with information and technology freely
and widely consumed by people and in turn transformed
into new types of consumption patterns, it is not possible
to continue growing with restricting people from
accessing certain types of information.
Despite ‘democracy advantage’ in theory, some empirical
works have concluded that it is not possible to assert that
having a democratic regime brings about welfare. Some
argue that democracy neither fosters nor hinders
economic development, whilst for others an authoritarian
regime is necessary at the beginning for an economy to
take off. Even though these claims have their own
grounds, they sometimes overlook the distinction
between the different levels of democracy attained. The
amenities mentioned above mostly pertain to wellestablished and stable democracies.
In conclusion, different aspects of democracy directly and
indirectly have the potential to promote economic growth
and development. However, until this time, authoritarian
regimes had also proved unexpectedly successful. This
might have been due to their unsaturated potential. From
the 21st century onwards, democracy will be the most
significant prerequisite for prosperity and peace.
Democracy, in my opinion, deserves the praises mostly due
to the opportunities it provides to the society, amongst its
other characteristics. Every individual has the equal
opportunities of access to education, jobs, credit, and other
amenities, regardless of their political orientation.
Democratic regimes ensure that every kind of technology,
knowledge and information has the possibility to flourish
and spread from within society, albeit opposed to the
government in power. Each citizen, thus, is entitled to
Democracy and Development
7
Notes
(1) Sarangi, P. (2012). Can the Right to Information Help?
Journal of Democracy, 23(1), pp. 149-154.
(2) Banik, D. (2011). Growth and Hunger in India. Journal of
Democracy, 22(3), pp. 90-104.
(3) Bhagwati, J. (1995). The New Thinking on Development.
Journal of Democracy. 6(4), pp. 50-64.
(4) ibid., p. 62.
(5) Banik, D. (2011). Growth and Hunger in India.
(6) Halperin, H., Siegle, J.T. and Weinstein, M.M. (2010) The
democracy advantage: how democracies promote prosperity
and peace. New York: Routledge
(7) Wittman, D. (1989). Why democracies produce efficient
results. Journal Of Political Economy, 97(6), pp. 1395-1424.
Zeynep completed her BA in Management at Bogazici University in Turkey. She is
now student at the MA in International Development at the University of Warwick.
She is interested in democratization, good governance and development, particularly in Turkey.
DEMOCRACY: NECESSARY BUT NOT SUFFICIENT
FOR DEVELOPMENT?
8
Human Rights: What is there not to love?
HUMAN RIGHTS: WHAT IS THERE NOT TO LOVE?
WARWICK
GLOBAL
DEVELOPMENT
SOCIETY
THE
UNIVERSITY OF
WARWICK
Asli Sepil, MA in International Political Economy
People have diverse feelings about human rights. While some see it as a wholehearted moral
demand to bring justice to humankind by protecting human freedom and human dignity, others
see it as a product of Western philosophical and political principles, and just a contemporary
way of Western political imperialism under the guise of so-called ‘universal’ values.
Supporters of the regime believe that the framework was created to ensure all individuals,
without any discrimination, treated with respect to their human worth and it represents the
bare minimum that is required for a person to live a human existence. Legal philosopher
Michael Perry has summed up the essence of human rights by suggesting that there are certain
things that ought never to be done to people and certain other things that ought to be done;
these “things”, according to him, are human rights.
On the other hand, cultural relativists claim that no moral judgment is universally valid;
therefore, according to them, it is not possible to create a universal regime of moral principles.
Cultural relativists believe that morality is relative to culture and that right and wrong may vary
with cultural norms. Consequently, according to them, nothing can be ‘universal’, including
human rights.
The cultural relativist way of thinking however brings up the question that: ‘is there any
‘borders’ for culture’? If one supports the belief that human rights regime is not applicable due
to relative nature of moral judgment, how does that person for instance support having a
domestic law? Can people living in one country claimed to have exactly the same culture,
tradition and expectation of law? What if an individual or group of individuals living in the
continental Europe believes in human sacrifice to a pagan god? What if a European citizen wants
to be a cannibal? Why people living in the United States are opposing a Mormon wanting to
marry a 13 year-old girl? Isn’t it his ‘religious’ belief that we all have to respect according to
relativity of moral norms? Why is it acceptable to practice such rituals in the South under the
name of ‘culture’ but not in the West? Why do we have domestic law if we believe cultural
relativism can bring into question what is ‘moral’ and ‘acceptable’?
Proponents of cultural relativism should consider the content of culture and types of coercive
practices against inhabitants before accepting a ‘culture’ at its face value (1). There is not always
agreement within cultures regarding what is tradition. The inability of members within a society
to define culture or tradition suggests a serious epistemological problem with the cultural
relativists’ argument. A one-size-fits-all critique often leveled against human rights by cultural
relativists, should in fact be engaged by them for self-evaluation (2). A question should be
whether member of a particular cultural group have the choice and possibility to opt out of
certain cultural practices, if he or she chooses to.
Cultural relativists believe that human rights regime is not reflecting the ‘collectivist’ culture of
the South. For example, cultural relativists from South East Asian countries claim that their socalled ‘Asian values’, such as communitarian welfare and social order, were contradicted by
human rights standards (3). First, individualism is not contra-collectivism; an individual can
9
choose to be collectivist. Second, human rights
claim to be practiced by Western states against the
regime is not an attempt to change any societies.
South? Since there is a power asymmetry between
What human rights regime does is to provide the
civilians and the state, how can repressed civilian
choice of opting out, but only when the individual
protect their cultural and political existence? A state
himself or herself finds it necessary to do so. For all
granting insufficient rights to its people, engaging in
its individualism, human rights regime does not
cruel and barbaric behavior against its citizens, a
require adherents to abandon their other cultural
purely “internal” or “domestic” matter? Don’t we need
attachments; what the declaration mandates is the
a universal ‘overseer’ to balance power relationships?
right to choose, and specifically the right to leave
Laissez-faire attitude regarding how government treat
when choice is denied. Take into account minorities
its own citizens is simply no longer acceptable. (5)
and indigenous communities whose rights and culture
Certain scholars consider Western intervention for
has been demolished because they were forced to
human rights abuses as ‘Western hypocrisy’.
participate in ‘local culture’. When convoying a
However, it would be a mistake to overemphasize the
thorough understanding, human
association of human rights with
rights seem to prove a useful way
Western hypocrisy; it has more
“What creators of human
to protect different values. This
into it. As Amartya Sen stated:
rights regime pursued was a
includes protection of indigenous
‘Freedoms are important and people
rights, minority rights and
much better world than what
have reason to ask what they should
freedom of speech.
do to help each other in defending
they had lived through, by esGovernments employ repression
tablishing a floor below which or promoting their respective
and use violence when it feels
freedoms, and even others who are
no individual is to be allowed to
threatened in its strength and
not themselves responsible for
fall”
power, and when it has the
causing the violation, have a good
opportunity to do so. (4) In
situations where political leaders perceive their
powers to be threatened, they will take steps to
minimize or eliminate this threat. Therefore, when
there is government (sponsored) violence, there is
usually a strong opposition within the state; an
opposition strong enough to be perceived threatening
by the state. Demands of an opposition that gained
strong enough support to ‘threaten’ a government
power should not be neglected nor repressed; but
should be negotiated. However, there is a power
asymmetry between civilians and states, which
prevents the negotiation option in cases when
governments are willing to use violence against the
opposition. This raises the concern about the culture
and beliefs of the repressed masses. Isn’t blocking the
demands of the internal opposition forms a way of
cultural expansionism, which cultural relativists’
reason to consider what they should
do to help.’ (6)
Governments, indeed, in addition to their moral
obligations, have extraterritorial obligation towards
universal achievement of human rights. According to
United Nations Charter Article 1(3):
“The purposes of the United Nations are: . . . To
achieve international co-operation in solving
international problems of an economic, social,
cultural, or humanitarian character, and in
promoting and encouraging respect for human rights
and for fundamental freedoms for all without
distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion”.
Human Rights: What is there not to love?
10
Why did states, organizations, intellectuals and civil
societies of the 20th century desired to build a regime
to ensure the well-being of all humankind? Why did
they care about rights of and abuses against people
they do not even know? According to Plato, human
beings have a special added ingredient which provides
a reason for people to be nice to each other. He
suggested this ingredient creates the difference
between humans and other species. Darwin also
argued that human beings contained a special added
ingredient, which according to him makes us
exceptionally talented animals, who are clever enough
to take charge of its own evolution. This ingredient, I
believe, inspired the creation of universal human
rights regime.
What creators of human rights regime pursued was a
much better world than what they had lived through,
by establishing a floor below which no individual is to
be allowed to fall. Achieving true implementation of
human rights regime throughout the globe will ensure
a better world for both Western and Southern states.
Particularly for Southern states, since human rights is a
significant move towards achievement of
development. Implementation of human rights is a
significant step towards achieving development.
As Dalai Lama suggests, ‘the problems we face today,
violent conflicts, destruction of nature, poverty,
hunger and so on, are human created problems which
can be resolved through human effort, understanding
and the development of a sense of brotherhood and
sisterhood’. As we are capable to achieve this, why
continue to suffer?
Notes
(1) Jones, P, 2008, “Universal Rights”, in The Companion to
Development Studies, ed. Desai, V, Potter, R. London: Hodder
Education, pp.569
(2) Jones, P, 2008, “Universal Rights”, in The Companion to
Development Studies, ed. Desai, V, Potter, R. London: Hodder
Education, pp.569
(3) Jones, P, 2008, “Universal Rights”, in The Companion to
Development Studies, ed. Desai, V, Potter, R. London: Hodder
Education, pp.570
(4) Carey, S, Gibney, M, Poe, S. 2010. The Politics of Human Rights The Quest for Dignity, pp.128.
(5) Carey, S, Gibney, M, Poe, S. 2010. The Politics of Human Rights The Quest for Dignity, pp.7.
(6) Sen, A, 2004. Elements of a Theory of Human Rights. Philosophy
& Public Affairs, pp.338.
Asli completed her BA in Management at Bilkent University in Turkey. Before joining the MA programme in International Political Economy, she worked in public accounting, three years based in Istanbul and two in the United States. Growing up in
a developing country, she had considerable exposure to issues of development,
which ignited her initial interest in the field. Her main areas of interest are international development, gender issues and poverty reduction.
Human Rights: What is there not to love?
11
RIO +20: MORE OF THE SAME?
Rio+20: More of the Same?
Malissa Mistry, MA in International Political Economy
WARWICK
GLOBAL
DEVELOPMENT
SOCIETY
THE
UNIVERSITY OF
WARWICK
On June 2012, the Third Earth Summit held at Rio de Janerio marked two decades since the
first Earth Summit on the environment and development was held in 1992. With 130 Heads of
State attending, and 192 countries represented, this conference was aiming to establish the way
towards a green economy to achieve sustainable development and to lift people out of poverty.
Its concluding document, “The Future We Want” is described by their website as taking “a
major step forward”. In the Rio +20 press release, the UN Secretary‐General Ban Ki‐moon
said. “Rio+20 has affirmed fundamental principles — renewed essential commitments – and
given us new direction” (1).
The view from outside the UN, however, has been far less optimistic. Rio +20 has been
lambasted for being a failure, criticised for being vague and still lacking the political will power
to actually implement any of the suggested changes. The conference highlighted a number of
persistent problems regarding climate change and development. North/ South divisions remain
– the South are unsurprisingly reluctant to embrace a development path that may not reap the
financial rewards they need to lift their citizens out
of poverty. And yet again, the unwillingness of the
“There are no avowals to funUnited States, the world’s biggest consumer of
goods and energy, reared its head. Obama’s refusal
damentally change
to attend the summit, along with their rejection to
consumption habits of the
allow the UNEP (United Nations Environment
North, just to make them susProgramme) to be upgraded to a specialised agency,
tainable through market formakes any meaningful progress unlikely. Other
ces”
heads of some of the most important states did not
attend – German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Prime
Minister Cameron of the UK and Japanese Prime
Minister Noda also stayed away from the meeting citing their own debt crisis as keeping them
too busy. Furthermore, the agreements made at the Summit were all non-binding; instead
“voluntary commitments” were made to try and encourage governments and businesses to adopt
their proposals. There is little repercussion for those who fail to follow through with their
promises. The agreements themselves, however, were nothing new. In “The Future We Want”,
the word “reaffirm” is used fifty-nine times, but there are very few new declarations. The
solutions put forth by Agenda 21 from 1992 are reaffirmed without a questioning over why in
the last twenty years, the outlook for the planet has not improved but worsened instead. A lack
of concrete commitments and initiatives presented to tackle these issues was also combined with
an ambiguity and vagueness that clouds the coherence this new direction to be taken.
One of the main talking points of Rio +20 was the advocation of the “green economy” – a
developmental path that ‘in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication will
enhance our ability to manage natural resources sustainably and with lower negative
environmental impacts, increase resource efficiency and reduce waste’ (2). Much is said about
12
what the “green economy” can
acco mpli s h; t e ch n olo gy
transfer, sharing of expertise,
reducing poverty, a promotion
of social inclusion, more
sustainable consumption and
production patterns, and
ultimately, a sustained and
inclusive economic growth for
developing and developed
countries.
Will this concept really be
enough to halt the degradation of the environment
though? It is unlikely. The “green economy” bears a
strong resemblance to the “sustainable development”
promoted by the UN in 1992, especially in its flaws.
“Sustainable development” as a policy path was
criticised with its introduction in 1992 because it was
unclear whether sustainability was to be pursued to
enable further economic growth or as an end in itself.
Similarly, the ambiguity surrounding what a “green
economy” actually consists of looms large today. For
instance, is nuclear technology considered a green
technology because it reduces reliance on fossil fuels,
or is it omitted because of problems with waste disposal
and safety problems? (3) There is little discussion about
what a green economy would entail, what would need
to change, specific policy proposals, or any kind of
specific end-point for the condition of the planet or
human lives, especially for those living in poverty. Both
these terms are aspiring to a better future, but the
mechanics and aims behind them remain contested and
divisive.
Yet, there is still a fundamental problem underlying all
these terms and conferences, and that is the way they
view nature merely as a resource, only to be framed in
an economic language. The link between greening the
planet and development has been made clear by
institutions such as the UN or the World Bank; the idea
that economic growth and the market will provide us
with the technology and know
-how to manage these
environmental and poverty
problems has persisted and
become entrenched in their
solutions. There are no
avowals to fundamentally
change consumption habits of
the North, just to make them
sustainable through market
forces. “Just add green and
stir” seems to be the main idea
behind current UN environmental thinking; green
technology will save us, measurements and
monitoring will help us manage the damage, science
will find a way to cheaply and efficiently replace nonrenewable energy sources, the market will help
manoeuvre products and services into becoming
more ecologically efficient. The framing of the
environmental problem in purely technicalmanagerial terms crowds out more ethical or holistic
modes of thinking, leaving nature to the realms of
mere inputs and outputs that need to be maintained
for the benefit of economic development.
Changing our view of nature in developed countries,
what it is there for, and whether we have the right to
exploit it is not a topic that often comes up at high
profile international conferences on the environment,
and is unlikely to be discussed seriously in the future
either. The reaffirmation of the declarations given by
previous summits by Rio +20 point to this as well –
there is a reluctance to discuss some of the basic
tenets of contemporary economic and social life.
There is an unwillingness to discuss alternatives, or
debate why current market, economic or technical
solutions are not making a difference. The
technicalisation of nature blinds us from examining
whether there are other ways to progress society
apart from an economic-technical method that has
already been promoted, and is not making a
difference.
Rio+20: more of the same?
13
Is there any hope for change though? At the end of
2012, the UN announced that the years 2014-2024
would be named the ‘Decade of Sustainable Energy for
All’, moving environmental issues further up the
agenda. There was also an agreement at Rio +20 to
create a set of Sustainable Development Goals, to
replace the Millennium Development Goals and to
ensure that sustainability and poverty eradication
remain linked for the future. Some small steps were
taken at Rio +20. But there are still some fundamental
issues holding sustainable development and the
protection of the Earth’s resources back, and they were
all too clear from Rio +20. Ambiguous definitions, a
conspicuous lack of influential heads of state in
attendance, no binding agreements all hindered the any
potential success of Rio +20. Ultimately, an
environmental sustainability that re-evaluates our
relationship with nature, and the purpose of nature
itself is missing. If we truly want to reverse the damage
being done to the planet, then surely we need to stop
viewing the environment as only existing for our own
purposes.
Notes
(1) Rio+20 Press Release [online] http://www.un.org/en/
sustainablefuture/pdf/rio20%20concludes_press%20release.pdf
(last accessed 15/01/13)
(2) UN A/CONF.2167L1 (2012) Outcome of the Conference: The future
we want. [online] https://rio20.un.org/sites/rio20.un.org/files/
a-conf.216l-1_english.pdf, p. 11 (last accessed 15/01/13)
(3) Haas, P (2012) ‘The Political economy of ecology: Prospects for
Transforming the World Economy at Rio +20’, Global Policy,
3:1, p. 97
Malissa has previously completed a BA in History and Politics at the University of
Nottingham, and is currently studying for a MA in International Political Economy.
Her interests include the culture of political economy, and its impact on IPE as well
as the development discourse.
Rio+20: more of the same?
14
THE ARAB SPRING AND DEMOCRACY
PROMOTION EFFORTS FROM THE WEST
THE ARAB SPRING AND DEMOCRACY PROMOTION
EFFORTS FROM THE WEST
WARWICK
GLOBAL
DEVELOPMENT
SOCIETY
THE
UNIVERSITY OF
WARWICK
Eva Doya Le Besnerais, MA in International Relations
The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region has long been seen as the part of the world
where nothing ever happens, or ever changes. A number of scholars referred to the
“exceptionalism” of the region trying to explain the reason for its authoritarian persistence. In
that sense, they were all considering to a certain degree that the fault was the Arab-Islamic
political culture of the region. However, the uprisings of 2011 in Tunisia, Egypt and more or
less all over the region have brutally discredited these explanations. Indeed, the events took
almost everyone by surprise.
It could be easily believed that the Arab Spring is the
“After more than a decade prolong-awaited result of some decades of western
moting the spread of democrademocracy promotion efforts. Indeed, both the
cy in the MENA region one
European Union and the United States had long been
might expect an enthusiastic
working for the spread of democracy in the region.
reception from the West of the
The EU implemented its first relevant initiative in
first Arab uprisings. However,
1995; it was the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership
the first reactions of both the
(EMP), the so-called “Barcelona Process”, whose aim
US and the EU were hesitant. ”
was to “foster political pluralism” in the Maghreb and
Mashreq states. This initiative was based on the
creation of channels of dialogue, new trade
agreements with negative conditionalities attached
(punishing the country that has not shown progress towards democracy breaking trade
agreements or stopping aid flows) and a special EU democracy assistance budget. The
philosophy was to influence through soft power, cooperation and gradualism. The EMP was
complemented with the “anti-terrorism action plan” (October 2001) and "The Framework
Decision on Combating Terrorism" (June 2002) as a response of the attacks of September 11,
2001, in the US. The second EU institutionalized initiative was “the Union for the
Mediterranean” (UfM) proposed by the French President Nicolas Sarkozy and created in 2008
(and still functioning). The aim was to create a co-membership institution based in the
principles of the Barcelona Process. The third initiative was the European Neighbourhood Policy
(ENP) created in 2004 to frame the dialogue between the EU and its close neighbours in a set of
bilateral relations.
On the other hand, the US has had a long-term interest in the democratization of the MENA
region. Until the 1970s, the US was particularly interested in securing its interests in the region
(for example, access to petroleum), and to deal with the conflict between the Arab states and
Israel. In the 1980s the US became more concerned about economic growth because they
assumed that this was necessary in order to secure their strategic interests. After a while, it
somehow realised that autocracies were preventing these countries to progress economically.
But because they did not want to irritate political elites, throughout the 1990s and 2000s they
15
focused in developing assistance programs for
nongovernmental and civil society organisations.
Deliberation of Democracy promotion in the MENA
region was suddenly intensified after the attacks of
September 11. The country was then under the socalled “war on terrorism” and President George W.
Bush was willing to promote democracy in a very
particular way. On the one hand, he wanted to
maintain friendly relations with the autocracies of the
region in order to secure his strategic interests, whilst
on the other he was planning to promote democracy
either through military intervention (examples being
Iraq, Afghanistan, among others) or supporting projects
empowering key civil society organisations (using the
“Middle East Partnership Initiative” funds). A more
ambitious initiative, the “Broader Middle East and
North Africa Initiative” (BMENA) was aimed to
promote democratic change through a “new political
dialogue with governmental, social and economic
actors in the Middle East” and committed both the US
and the EU to work together and sharing information
and good practices on democracy assistance. The
Obama administration, understanding that the language
of “democracy promotion” had become “toxic” made a
shift to the language of “development and dignity”. In
practice, the soft power techniques of democracy
promotion remained the same.
After more than a decade promoting the spread of
democracy in the MENA region one might expect an
enthusiastic reception from the West of the first Arab
uprisings. However, the first reactions of both the US
and the EU were hesitant. It was probably hard to
believe that in a region such as the MENA, some
bloody demonstrations in Tunis could mean the
beginning of a regional transition to democracy or at
least, some extent of political reform. Indeed, for a
while there were some unfortunate discourses like the
one made by the French Foreign Affairs Minister
Michèle Alliot-Marie offering French savoir faire to
Tunisia's security forces in order to bring an end to the
demonstrations. However, by the end of February the
demonstrations were already truly challenging the
autocratic regimes so it was clear that the EU and the
US were supposed to properly address the subject.
The US made clear a return to the old discourse of
democracy promotion (similar to the Bush style)
whereas the EU regretted its relations with the
dictators and proposed more resources (mainly the
SPRING programme, the Erasmus mundus and
Neighbourhood Civil Society Facility) to be used by
the “new democrats” in the MENA region.
The big problem is that the double strategy pursued
by the West cost them dear at the Arab Spring
because, through their economic and strategic deals
with the despotic leaders (the “friends” or “partners”)
of the old regimes, they had effectively supported
(and legitimised) these autocracies, while relegating
to the background the democratisation objectives.
This strategy has severely affected the credibility of
both the EU and the US in their commitment with
democracy. But this has not been the only element of
erosion. Indeed, the list is long: the lack of
commitment to implement negative conditionalities,
the intervention in Iraq by the US, the reaction of the
EU and the US of the electoral results in Palestine in
2006, when they denied the legitimacy of Hamas,
etc.
The Arab Spring and Democracy Promotion Efforts from the West
16
Not only had they underestimated the ability of the
MENA populations to take matters into their hands,
they also failed to deal with the importance of Political
Islam in the region. Indeed, Islamists have never
benefitted from a systemic debate with the West,
especially with the EU. And this has been particularly
relevant considering that Political Islam is the electoral
winner of the post-Arab Spring. This means that in
Tunisia and Egypt, where the Islamists have built their
strength, the West has not interlocutors so the links are
to be constructed again.
The MENA region may be now transiting to democracy
(or at least to some kind of political reformed set of
regimes) but it is also definitely characterised by
economic paralysis, instability and insecurity. And this
is by no means what the EU and the US wanted when
they were implementing their projects to promote the
spread of democracy. In reality they were willing to
promote a gradual and stable transition to a democratic
system that would secure their economic and strategic
interests in the region while advancing to fairer
regimes. (1) It is therefore obvious that, according to
their interests, the Arab Spring does not represent a
success of democratisation in a way the Western
powers have desired.
Nevertheless, it is not all bad news for Europe and the
United States. At least, Democracy is advancing in the
world and the “MENA exceptionalism” is discredited.
And there is reason to believe that Western democracy
promoters have participated in some way to the
creation of the conditions for the Arab Spring to start.
(2)
Therefore, there are mainly two lessons to be learned
by the US and the EU: the first one is that if the result
of their democracy promotion strategy was an
undesired outcome (uncertain advancement to
democracy, insecurity, economic paralysis, etc.) it is
imperative to analyse in depth what has been done
and to what extent it worked. Only this analysis of
results would allow the EU and the US to be more
effective when promoting the spread of democracy
for whatever reason in other parts of the world. This
analysis would also help the reorientation of the
democracy promotion strategy in the region in
accordance with the new necessities. The second
lesson to be learned is related with the premature
response of both the EU and the US to the Arab
Spring. The situation has changed the political and
economic actors and therefore, the interests of the
west in the region have also been modified. The
West should now take the time to consider its
interests in the region and define a new strategy.
Being in a “listening mode” and offer more resources
to the same people is not going to be useful neither
for the southern Mediterranean countries nor for the
West. Indeed, finding common interests and
establishing a new dialogue between free and equal
sovereign countries would be the best way to move
together to a new mutual beneficial relationship.
Notes
(1) Hollis, Rosemary. No friend to democratization: Europe's role in the
genesisi of the 'Arab Spring'. International Affairs. Chatham House,
2012
(2) Burnell, Peter. “Promoting Democracy Abroad”. Transaction
Publishers. New Jersey, 2011
Eva studied at the Pompeu Fabra Univeristy (Barcelona) for a Bachelor of Arts in
Political Science and Public Administration before studding for a year Political Science
and International Relations at Sciences Po, Paris. She then has been working as a
Junior Research Assistant at IEMed (European Institute of the Mediterranean) in the
Euromed Policies Department. She is currently at the University of Warwick for a
Master in International Relations. Her research interests are Democratization,
Development studies, political science theory and politics of the European Union.
The Arab Spring and Democracy Promotion Efforts from the West
17
Towards a positive definition of food security
TOWARDS A POSITIVE DEFINITION OF FOOD SECURITY
WARWICK
GLOBAL
DEVELOPMENT
SOCIETY
THE
UNIVERSITY OF
WARWICK
Maria Eugenia Giraudo, MA in International Political Economy
Hunger and famines have been present in our history since antique times. Histories of starvation
in Ancient Egypt can be found in the Bible, and, more recently, memories of the Irish famine or
hunger during the World Wars are still present in people’s collective imaginary. However, to
think of famines during the 21st century should be anachronistic, they are not supposed to
belong to our time, the same time where technology and knowledge advancements have
produced un-imaginable resources and possibilities. Still, global food crises are a resilient
phenomenon and the risk of a ‘food cliff’ grows higher.
The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) reports that from January 2004 to May
2008, rice prices increased 224 percent, wheat prices increased 108 percent, and corn was up
89 percent. This price spike contributed to food
insecurity worldwide, civil unrest in several
“The lack of innovation in the unnations, and generated appeals for food aid from
derstanding of food security
36 countries. According to FAO’s Report on
‘State of Food Insecurity 2012’, about 870 million demonstrates that working within
people are estimated to have been undernourished
the frameworks of the definitions
in the period 2010-2012. Recent studies have
so far elaborated has not showed
stated that a child will never recover from loss in
long-term, sustainable effects. We
nutrition in the first thousand days from
need to make a new account of the
conception to about two or three years of age.
history of the concept so far and
Josette Sheeran calles this the ‘Burden of
how
it has limited our understandKnowledge’, as we are certain now of the
consequences of malnutrition on children and that ing of the problem and our creativity in the design of strategies.”
there is nothing we can do once the damage is
done. There is an urgent need to change our
understanding and our strategies towards food
security and the design of the food system as a
whole. ‘Ad-hoc’ and ‘ex post-facto’ responses will not un-do the damage being done every
second to children all around the world. As President Obama stated, there is a moral, an
economic, and a security imperative to address the issue of food insecurity.
More than a decade after the last World Food Summit, the main definition of food security
remains the same as in 1996. After the peak in prices in 2008, attention was given to the issue
by multilateral forums like the G8 and the G20, but responses have been limited to regulating
the price flows and volatility. The lack of innovation in the understanding of food security
demonstrates that working within the frameworks of the definitions so far elaborated has not
showed long-term, sustainable effects. We need to make a new account of the history of the
concept so far and how it has limited our understanding of the problem and our creativity in the
design of strategies.
18
For forty years, the definition of food security has
evolved around the same perspective and based on the
same assumptions that limit the understanding of the
concept and hence the research program and policy
response. Throughout all the definitions of food
security so far there has been the separation of men and
nature, as opposing agents that fight over scarce
resources. Men need to find through technology and
management, ways to take the maximum out of nature
in order to satisfy their own needs. If this idea
continues to prevail, though, the responses given to the
recurring food crisis would be inadequate and, in a
way, would itself perpetuate instability in the food
system.
In the first editorial of the Journal of Peace Research,
Johan Galtung warned about the risks of this, as “there
is the danger that strict definitions may throw a shadow
of Today into Tomorrow, freezing the status quo by
tying us to perspectives and dimensions that may be
outworn very soon” (1). If we fail to broaden our
understanding of food security, responses will be
inadequate and crisis will persist.
What is needed is the development of a more ‘positive’
definition that addresses the structural inequalities and
exploitation relations within the system that would
make of food security a more sustainable,
comprehensive and truly multisectorial subject. So far,
the focus has been set on assuring availability and
access, thus putting the solution in an increase of
production and better distribution of food, without
addressing the causes of its failure; an increasing
technicalization of food security, as nutrition is
approached as a very specific technical issue, food crises
are seen as the result of natural disasters, and food is
commodified through its commercialization on financial
markets; and finally, understanding of food insecurity
so far has failed in identifying responsible actors and the
roles they play in the global food system.
To move towards a broader and more comprehensive
definition of food security there are three questions that
need to be further addressed. First, a stronger focus on
vulnerability, its conditions, structural forces and
agents responsible for keeping such a large part of the
population under the risk of being hunger. People in
a situation of vulnerability are not food secure, they
are subject of what Johan Galtung called ‘latent
violence’ (1), a situation of “unstable equilibrium”,
where “a little challenge would trigger considerable
killing”. (2) More importantly, several studies have
stated that there is enough food to feed the world,
however, 820 million people in developing countries
experienced food insecurity, and it is constantly
highlighted the need to increase the world’s food
production. Moreover, 90% of the world’s food
insecure population suffers from ‘chronic food
insecurity’, which leaves only 10% suffering from
‘acute food insecurity’, but does not points to the
level of possibility there is for the 90% to quickly fall
into a situation of ‘acute’ food insecurity. People
living under this form of ‘latent’ food insecurity are
not visible; they don’t make front pages of
international newspapers unless a price shock or a
climate disaster pushes them to famine or mass
starvation. Addressing this would involve a
redefinition of the relation between men and nature,
in order to build a more sustainable food system,
where households can re-construct their relation with
food, not as a ‘fuel for the human body’ (3), but with
a social meaning and relation to food.
Towards a positive definition of food security
19
Second, a critical analysis of the food system is needed.
Clapp (2012) identifies ‘middle spaces’ that have been
taken by transnational corporations to increase the
complexity and the different ways food has been
‘commodified’ or taken from its social role. To actively
recognize the agents involved in the system and the way
they act could lead us into assigning responsibility for
mass starvations or just the existence of populations in a
situation of vulnerability.
Finally, we need to ‘re-politicize’ food, and include
socio-political dynamics into the process, both at the
global as at the household or national level. Most
importantly, understand that the food system involves
relations of power among different actors. There is a
Notes
(1) Galtung, J. (1964). An Editorial. Journal of Peace Research 1
(1), pp. 1.
(2) Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, Peace, and Peace research.
Journal of Peace Research 6(3), pp. 172.
(3) Edkins, J. (2000) Whose hunger? Concepts of Famine, Practices of
Aid. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Maria did her undergraduate studies in International Relations in Buenos Aires,
Argentina and also holds a degree in Geopolitics and International Relations
from the Political Science Institute of Toulouse, France. After finishing her
studies, she worked for three years at a think tank based in Buenos Aires where
she worked on projects involving multiple areas in International Relations and
began to be interested on issues of development and food security. She is
currently a student in International Political Economy, also focusing on International Development, Global Food System and Global Governance.
Towards a positive definition of food security
THE UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK
I would like to thank all the members of the Society who contributed to this Newsletter with their articles, and
to those who participated and helped with commenting and reviewing the pieces. A special thanks to Malissa for
proofreading all the articles.
As Editor, I would like to stress that this is the result of a collective effort and hopefully it will reflect our commitment and interest in these issues. Our weekly discussions—along with the module seminars—have allowed
us to further explore the possibilities and challenges of development. We hope this Newsletter could contribute
to the debates and maybe raise interest in some of the topics here presented.
Maria Eugenia
Editor
VOLUME 9 - NUMBER 1
FEBRUARY 2013