[governance] right to development, the structure of IGC and IG issues for march deadline
Taran Rampersad
cnd at knowprose.com
Wed Mar 8 13:12:29 EST 2006
I've been reading this closely and considering it... comments are
inline, with a lot of stuff snipped out. I like finite emails. :-)
Milton Mueller wrote:
> Development is a good thing. The issue is how to get there.
Splitting a hair here that I think is important: Development is not a
destination, it is a process. I believe treating the speed of the
process - the speed of development - as the focal issue instead of a
moving snapshot allows for more creative solutions within the bounds of
humanity (which includes technology and ideology, as well as other
things that are so numerous that we lump them in with 'humanity' and
pray that nobody confuses us with the truth).
> I am challenging the notion that asserting a "right to development" contributes to development in any meaningful way.
Perhaps if we see 'right of development' as, instead, 'right to increase
the speed of the process of development within the context of the
affected people', we could see how such a Right contributes to development.
When the founding Fathers of the United States wrote, 'pursuit of life,
liberty and justice' - a very open ended phrase - one could say that
development is derivative since liberty would be served by the process
of development. I don't know any group out there that would say that
they would like to work harder instead of smarter, which means that
there would be more liberty. While that's the United States as it was
founded (and not necessarily the United States now), perhaps that
ideology which drove the U.S. Constitution and asserted rights which
themselves caused war within the United States itself... maybe it isn't
limited to the United States and never was. The UN Humanitarian Charter
is pretty clear along the same lines.
By enabling the Rights of Human Beings, by Acknowledging these Rights,
we cannot disregard the associated derivative Rights of Society, and
therefore the derivative Rights of Societies withing the greater society
of Global Society.
I believe... as I believe others do... that one does not have to move
ahead by pushing others down. That is a principle of Freedom. I am Free,
as long as I do not adversely affect the Freedom of Others. Therefore, I
am Free to Develop as long as I do not Adversely Affect the Freedom of
Others. Therefore, any Society I belong to which claims Civility is Free
to Develop as long as it does not Adversely Affect the Freedom of Other
Societies. One cannot adversely affect the Freedom of Other Societies
within the Global Society without an equal and opposing reaction force.
That is why humanity started off with blunt objects, proceeded to sharp
and pointy objects, then projectiles, and even now anticoagulant, ball
bearings, fertilizer and a carbon based life form. When Freedoms are
affected adversely, people react in ways that only an opposing thumb can
allow.
Therefore, if we want Peace then we as members of a global society need
to recognize that our Freedom is curtailed by any adverse effect on
other people's Freedoms, which includes the Process of Development,
which by Right of Freedom creates the derivative Right to Development.
Development is not a standalone process. It is a part of larger
processes. In fact, development could be called a process of
streamlining other processes.
Moral posturing and clear thinking are not necessarily separate
things... we should be careful when dealing with others in a global
society not to think the two, because they may be separate in our minds,
are separate in anyone else's. One mindset tends to separate things such
that people who say the world is round go to prison, and people who can
explain how the Space Shuttle blew up have to do so through
demonstrations on television in public instead of formal documents. Many
of the world's recognized scientists have established that science
without morality is bad; we could say the same of anything else -
including the process of development - which includes the Freedom to
streamline the processes of development.
>> And the right of development should be 'enforceable' by individuals and
>> communities against all kinds of political entities - from nation states, to
>> global systems. That was what we have been trying to do at WSIS, but you
>> seem to have very different views.....
>>
>
> Perhaps you could give me a specific example of how a right to development would be claimed, adjudicated and enforced. I suspect you will have a difficult time.
You're getting to the crux of the bureaucratic problem. It's only a
problem of bureaucracy, so do not be alarmed - it just requires an
unbureaucratic solution.
I'll take a shot at it. If I stand on your hand so that you cannot type,
I have used my Freedom of movement to adversely affect your Freedom of
movement. There are Laws around the world which would charge me with
assault - why? Because I would be adversely affecting you. Would I be
the one to complain? Of course not, unless it is uncomfortable to stand
on your hand. You would complain. And who would you complain to?
Probably anyone who would listen. I might stand on your other hand so
that you could not make a phone call. I might gag you so that you cannot
scream. But if nobody can hear you complain, does that make my actions
morally proper? Of course not. Does it make your misery more bearable?
No, of course not - in fact, probably the reverse would be true. In
fact, at some point (depending on how much indignity you will take) you
will try to retaliate, perhaps kicking at me - so I may tie your legs
and create a human pedestal out of you such that I am more comfortable.
Yet there are laws that assert that you have the right to not be tied up.
When it comes to development, the same is true. Precedents are a
dangerous thing in that most precedents include some form of bondage of
Freedom. So, I think we can agree that if I were to do these things it
would be morally reprehensible. And, until a few centuries ago, it was
legal. Slavery still exists, but it is seen as illegal. How can we allow
entire societies to be bound and tied, used as pedestals, and say, "It's
too hard to ajudicate and enforce these morals! Run away!"
No, there is a Right, and if there are those that wish to ignore the
Rights of Human Beings and their Societies, then I can think of a few
choice planets that they could move to. If we wish to live here, in
peace, we have to recognize the Freedom of the Human Being and the
Freedom of Human Societies. And recognizing them implies ajudication and
enforcement. And that means hearing out problems, and reacting such that
adverse effects are treated *as* Adverse Effects instead of
Unpleasantries to Continue The Position of Those Who Benefit.
If anyone wishes for a demonstration, please drop by and I'll gladly gag
you, tie you up and stand on your hands with combat boots until you
understand the Societal frustration associated with not recognizing your
Human Rights - I'd see it as a service to Humanity that I would be
performing. To say that Humans have rights but their Societies have no
Rights is as foolish as making people ride on the back of the bus over
their color, or tossing scientists in jail because they take on the
Church, suicide bombers, telling people they cannot vote because of
differences in genitalia (or use of genitalia, for that matter), or - my
personal favorite - killing each other with weapons while using
religious texts as shields.
> I understand what it means when, e.g., indigenous people claim that their lands should not be expropriated or polluted, but these are not "development rights" but simple assertions of property rights.
No. Indigenous people typically do not claim Land, they claim the Right
to Use the Land. They don't claim ownership of Land. Societies which
claim Land as Property are forcing these 'Rights' on indigenous peoples
because it's the only way that they can find to negotiate with the
indigenous peoples. I can't tell you how many reservations and
indigenous areas I have walked in - from Panama to Mexico, to New Mexico
to Hawaii... and I was allowed to walk there not because I asserted a
right, but because I did not disrespect the Land. I have the shoes I
walked with still. Those shoes have gone where many will never go
because they do not respect how the indigenous peoples treat the Land.
This is an alien concept for stock traders; to be able to use something
without owning it - oddly, 'leasing' is a move back *toward* indigenous
Land concepts as convenient for people who profit from the leasing.
Assertion of 'property rights'. I believe you've found yourself in the
middle of defining what property rights are, and I'm not talking just
about land. Patenting of Life. The Enola Bean. Any number of native
Indian plants. And a lot of these 'property rights', as enacted,
ajudicated and enforced, demonstrate a lack of regard for the property
itself. Sort of like slavery demonstrates a lack of regard for Human Beings.
And all of this... I say as someone who uses property, who owns Land...
and when I die, I will pass that ownership to someone else. Why? Because
of my version of Property Rights, and the fact that the Europeans did a
pretty good job of clearing out native inhabitants before they 'settled'
(or as I prefer, 'unsettled') the Caribbean in the name of...
Ownership.
Of course, I wouldn't be here without all of that. On my mother's side,
the Dutch would never have mixed with the Portugese, Blackfoot, Greek,
and others before that period... and my father's side would not have
come to Trinidad and Tobago as indentured servants for the English... I
would not have lived in what are now two colonies... but if you ask me
which heritage I call mine, you will expect me to claim *ownership* of
one whereas I will tell you I am a part of *all* of them.
Who owns my family tree? ahh... now we're getting somewhere. :-)
> I understand what enforcing such a right would mean: return of the lands to their rightful owners/stewards, or cessation of the pollution, etc.
>
Steward is more appropriate, it demonstrates a lean in the right
direction of what most indigenous people would consider to be their
role. By indigenous people, I rule out those of indigenous heritage who
are orphaned from their own culture(s).
> Please tell me, if someone in a poor country, say Sudan, petitions a nation state (or something as vague as a "global system") for their "right to development" what are they petitioning for? who will give it to them?
>
Nobody. They must take it. It's called sovereignty. Lessening the
adverse affects of claiming sovereignty is in the interest of everyone,
yet there are a few who benefit from these adverse effects and when they
drive process, we get what we've had for millenia.
>
> If you want to claim the mantle of "civil society" you'd better get used to the idea that _real_ CS is vast and diverse - ideologically as well as culturally, politically, etc.
>
Absolutely. And understanding what civil society is sometimes means
going back to the roots instead of driving within proximity of 'those
poor people', or going to a developing nation and staying in a cozy
tourist hotel. If anyone wants to claim the mantle of civil society,
they need to Dare to challenge their own assumptions on a daily basis.
I snipped out a lot, and I apologize if anyone believes I took out
something important; please point out what you think is important. I
think I have.
--
Taran Rampersad
Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago
cnd at knowprose.com
Looking for contracts/work!
http://www.knowprose.com/node/9786
New!: http://www.OpenDepth.com
http://www.knowprose.com
http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran
"Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
More information about the Governance
mailing list