By Acarya Sandiipananda Avadhuta
It has become fashionable to support humanitarian interventions such as in Kosovo. Of course, at the outset this sounds like a great idea and it probably is. But a second glance may reveal a double-edged sword. Protecting people and human values is a noble cause. One should welcome the pro-active position of western governments on this point. But how far is the intention to prevent human rights abuses genuine? It seems that humanitarian intervention is only supported when it does enhance the economic and strategic interests of western governments such as in securing new markets and in the further penetration of the global economy into regions that were formerly inaccessible to multinationals or where it was simply unsafe to invest due to social and political unrest.
As it is with economics, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Having learned this, we may ask, what then are the real motives for a humanitarian intervention? The protection of human rights is an obvious argument, but what is not so obvious is that such intervention is actually in the interest of western powers. Pacifying areas of political or ethnic unrest is the first step towards a democratic society. However, the democratic process almost always implies political democracy but never economic democracy. Investing money into military campaigns may still yield a handsome return once the market is up for grabs by multinational companies. That may be one reason why humanitarian intervention in China and Tibet is not an issue. When it is simply not in the greater economic or strategic interest of western powers, one may wait in vain for any intervention on behalf of human rights.
One should certainly question the motives for humanitarian intervention and see if there truly are no strings attached. If we are not careful, humanitarian intervention may just become the ’carrot on the stick’ for the expansion of the global market economy, the WTO, the World Bank and other such suspicious institutions. How much do our governments really care about human rights? Are they not also the protector of the capitalist market? Can the double responsibility of having to police human rights around the world and reinforcing the currents that drive the global capitalist economy, not lead to a clash of interests, to a conflict of conscience?
What is the position of our elected leaders when asked about human rights at the home front? Is living above the poverty line not a basic human right? Is having adequate medical care, guarantee of employment and free education not a basic human right? Is having guarantee of a shelter and appropriate nutrition not a basic human right? Is the freedom of economic self-determination not a basic human right? Is racism, child labor and socio-economic exploitation not against human rights? Why don’t we have a clear bill of human rights? Because it will become painfully clear that our own social and economic set-up is not up to such standards. Capitalism is not a guarantor of basic human rights and trying to implement such basic rights means nothing less than rocking the status quo. If we truly wish to guarantee basic human rights, we may as well start getting serious about it right here at our own doorsteps. But the question is, can capitalism satisfy such requirements? Certainly not. Capitalism creates vast inequalities and even thrives on them.
Implementing a universal bill of human rights would mean nothing less than letting go of some of the dearest cornerstones of a capitalist economy such as the freedom to unlimited accumulation of physical wealth regardless of what is the impact on the collective economy. Such drawbacks within capitalism can only be overcome by introducing the concept of economic democracy as proposed by P. R. Sarkar.
It is evident why western governments are hesitant to actually formulate clear humanitarian standards and create the necessary legal frame for its support. It is also clear why there always remains an air of ambiguity about humanitarian intervention. Simply because when such interventions take place, it is only with a view towards serving the greater interests of the global capitalist economy. If any intervention would be contrary to such interests, humanitarian intervention will simply not receive the support it should. What is more, unless governments take human rights serious within their own borders, humanitarian intervention can only come about if the offences committed against human rights in the concerned region are of a nature that does not exist in one’s own country. This is a serious drawback and lowers the standard of human rights. Either one is for or against human rights. Accepting only half the deal is not being serious about the whole issue. If we only protect human rights as long as nobody questions our own shortcomings, even though they may be of a milder offence, we are simply not being serious about human values. Government enforced ethnic violence and military oppression is largely extinct within western powers. As such, within these limits, western nations will favor humanitarian interventions. But go further and all appeals for intervention fall on deaf ears. Homelessness, joblessness, poverty and the like may be an uneasy subject for western politicians because they do not want to admit the shortcomings of our own economic setup.
Poverty and unemployment can certainly be eradicated. The economic realities within our countries are neither predestined by God, nor are they the product of nature. Our economic reality is created by none other than man himself. To understand economics one only has to look at who profits the most. Unemployment, underdevelopment and a low standard of life, may appear to be knotty problems. But it is only knotty as long as one tries to keep the status quo intact. As mentioned before, economic realities are man-made. There is no reason whatsoever why we should accept a continued state of unemployment, impoverishment and a declining purchasing power capacity. We may have learned that such problems are the natural outcome of a modern capitalist economy and there is little one can do about it. What is more, we may have been conditioned to belief that there is no instant remedy and as such we should be content with our lot since our leaders are doing everything they can to resolve the situation. What we are not told is that they only do all they can provided it happens within the academic framework of a capitalist philosophy. Universities, think tanks, research facilities and modern economics, all are supposedly trying to come up with solutions that reduce poverty, unemployment and the like. But all of them are only funded if they follow one simple rule ”Don’t rock the boat”. Academic recognition, financial incentives and social status, what not does the capitalist economy offer those who toe the line. We are simply bought off.
The question however is ”Can we allow human values to be bought off as well and to be used as an agent for the forces that control the global capitalist economy’? If we just accept from where the wind blows and never question our governments, we may undermine the very social foundations on which we stand. Will we leave such fundamental values such as human rights to the whims of the market? If we do, the achievements of modern civilization, of which we may be proud of, will come to nothing but castles in the air. Enlightened humanism may become the touch stone for policies geared at upholding the prevalent economic setup. Hopefully a new economics such as PROUT will emerge from this clash of interests. Either we build a better world or we just stop pretending and admit that we actually do not care about anything except for the size of our purse.
