|
Beyond serving as a venue for articulating, questioning and formulating alternative thinking on global development issues, DAWN has also envisioned the DDD to provide beacons for strategic directions that feminist organizations and movements can take forward in their advocacies and activisms. DAWN takes this opportunity to contemplate on some key questions that will hopefully stimulate new analyses, inspire new activisms and encourage new direction for justice and social progress:
Militarized Globalization and the Black Economy
Development and human security are intimately related—one cannot be achieved without the other. Contemporary wars occur in the sites of the most severe social divisions, calling forth multiple forms of crisis all at once (Petchesky and Laurie 2007). The nature of conflict and war has changed from predominantly inter-state to intra-state conflict with civilians, mainly women and children being severely affected. At the same time, militarization has increasingly been used for ensuring political stability in internal politics and paving the way for globalization across national boundaries.
Armed conflicts over natural resources can cross international borders. When natural resources, not only energy resources but also key minerals, primary products, and narcotics, are at the center of militarized struggles for power, conflicts tend to take longer to resolve and their internationalization makes resolution even more complicated to achieve, as political struggle over legitimate grievances becomes enmeshed with economic greed. In many situations, the struggle for control of key resources with involvement of former colonial powers is at the heart of conflict.
Conflict and attendant militarization are often buttressed by juridical situations that suspend the normal rule of law with the introduction of emergency powers and repressive legislation creating a ‘state of exception’ in which citizens are reduced to ‘bare life’ stripped of their ordinary rights (Agamben 2005). In such militarized environments, law and order and accountable governance are suspended for military ends. This environment results in the disintegration of democratic rights, such as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of mobility, among others. Thus, the state of exception becomes the norm, while the boundaries between the licit and illicit economy are blurred.
Globalization has become increasingly militarized, which has fuelled the growth of the global illicit/black economy, with the emergence of a new class of global actors: smugglers, warlords, guerrillas, terrorists, gangs, religious leaders, pirates, quasi-tribal organizations, etc. As globalization has weakened the power of nation states, this new class of global actors has established informal governance structures in militarized environments. A typical illustration of this process is the War on Terror, which has been one of the major events in the first half of the 21st Century. Many activities central and corollary to the Iraq invasion have been privatized to a degree unknown in previous conflicts. While it has been suggested that there had been a conscious decision made by the Bush Administration to allow many functions of warfare to be privatized, private organizations have become active participants in the war mainly due to forces, such as the workings of the market for profit; the explosion of information technology; and, most importantly, the collapse of State capacity and authority. The impact on the development of the black economy has been so great that Iraq is considered by some as “the most deviantly globalized place on earth” (Gilman, 2008).
This militarized globalization is paralleled by the expansion of the black economy in non-conflict but militarized zones. In these countries and locations income and power inequalities are widening and the role of States in the economy is increasingly reduced, particularly in the States’ capacity to deliver basic public goods such as security, jobs, infrastructure, education and health care. While this global trend affects both developed and developing countries in different ways, there are complex ramifications that cut across national boundaries, of which mineral-rich African countries are cases in point. In many of these countries as well as in some developed countries (such as Italy and the US), the black economy actors also control considerable segments of the licit economy. Corruption is a key element of their relationship with political governance institutions.
Some Key Questions
-
Militarization is integrally linked to systemic violence and together with armed conflict and civil war has played a major role in shaping and changing women’s lives. Whether as victim-survivors or recruited as combatants in war, women are forced to live in this militarized economy and under militarized globalization. With no alternative means of employment in the context of the breakdown of rural economies, mothers and wives have come to accept organized armed groups, including the military, as the sole avenue of employment for their sons and husbands (and, perhaps, even for themselves). Because women’s peacetime economic activities are concentrated in the informal sector anyway, they rely more so on the informal economy for survival and provisioning for their families and communities under militarized globalization. Yet, none of these economic activities are ever given any economic policy value. In addition, militarized circumstances create an environment for backlash where women’s activities are treated as illegal. In such contexts, how do we distinguish between the informal economy and the black economy? Much has been written on the gender dimensions of the black economy. How do we begin to identify these gendered aspects? What are the policy implications of your definitions?
2. It appears that the black economy is not separable from the global licit economy, since it is intrinsically linked to the structure of the global economy and the process of neoliberal globalization. In particular, the massive inequities in the global economic order together with the weakening of the capacity and authority of States are keys to its expansion. From a women’s rights perspective, the development of the black economy exacerbates the exploitation of women and tends to perpetuate the violations of their basic rights. How have various proposals for an alternative global economic order dealt with issues raised by the black economy? How can women’s rights be protected and fulfilled in such an alternative model taking into account complexities brought in by the intertwined licit and illicit economies?
3. In political terms, there is a transfer of a significant part of the powers of States and traditional political structures to the actors of the black economy resulting in their significance as a political force. Often their power is reinforced by their control of key segments of the licit economy. What are the implications for the political economy of development in the countries where such control is pervasive? What are the implications for feminist political strategies?
The last decade has witnessed major steps forward in legitimising a more holistic approach to “development”, which has led to efforts that address inequality and poverty through a multi‐dimensional approach, taking into account empowerment, freedom, well‐being and human rights of all people. The global women’s movement can boast of important achievements in the area of human rights, where women’s rights are increasingly recognized. At the global institutional level, the combined advocacy efforts of human rights defenders and women’s rights activists have secured strong and consistent support to the principles of gender equality and women’s rights. The appointment of a Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and of a feminist to the post of Independent Expert on Cultural Rights; the inclusion of women’s rights issues in the outcome documents of most global processes, along with the establishment of mechanisms such as the Human Rights Council and its representatives at regional and national levels are among the recent advances resulting from these advocacy efforts. In parallel, political and policy advocacy around sexuality issues and related areas has evidently become more visible both at the national and global levels, as exemplified by the international debates on HIV‐AIDS, sexual rights and more recently, the articulation of human rights principles to tackle discrimination and violence related to sexual orientation and gender identity (Yogjakarta Principles; December 2008 GA Declaration).
In spite of these advances, the implementation of the international conventions on women’s rights remains problematic. Furthermore, there are unresolved issues related to the seemingly gender-neutral human rights standards that are applied, which do not recognize differences and promote a universal conception of citizenship built with both heteronormativity and elite males in a given society as the norms. For instance, African feminist activists and researchers contend that this dominant conception is not adequate for the African postcolonial context where women’s citizenship is still largely defined by ascribed social relations of subordination, and their relations with the state are mediated by men, kin or communities. It is even more inadequate in the context of globalization where an “internal patriarchal closing of ranks’’ occurs as social subgroups or communities strive for their specific interests and rights in relation to the broader national community. In such a context, women at the community level are often forced to accept community culture and values defined by subordination. This is compounded by the prolonged crisis of many nation-states in the Africa region, where women are particularly affected by the exclusions resulting from their fragmentation and capture by both national elites and external forces. On one level, state policies already reflect some elements of “gender equality” frameworks but on the whole, these stop short of fully engaging issues of women’s empowerment and in particular, sexual rights and health and reproductive rights.
The political economy framework, on the other hand, has helped to elucidate upon processes behind elite capture of the state and the state’s subjection to external, if not imperialist, forces. The financialization of capitalism has brought the world economy into a major recession nearly a century after the last major global economic decline. In addition, the lack of coordination in exchange rate management and the US dollar as the de facto global reserve currency have contributed to the undermining of gains and advances in human rights. Political economists have extolled developmental states for their successes in creating strategic approaches to industrialization and development. These developmental states, however, are not at the forefront of promoting human rights, especially women’s human rights. It may even be argued that in these developmental states, social protection is a secondary result of increases in living standards made affordable by wage and earnings increases. The global economic crisis has laid bare these weaknesses in social protection.
Some Key Questions
1. The right to development and the economic, social and cultural rights convention have been used by human rights advocates to advocate for economic policies that are consistent with the human rights obligations. How can we make these strategies work for national macroeconomic policy making and for re-structuring global economic governance?
2. Sometimes a contradiction arises in the use of the human rights framework resulting in a class of social groups, such as the simultaneous protection of private property rights and fundamental human rights. This contradiction has been made prominent by land rights issues, especially with the Movimientos Sin Terras in Brazil. Among the approaches to resolve this contradiction is the application of the “social function of property,” which is enshrined in the Brazilian constitution. The political economy framework highlights colonial struggles and class struggles in its analysis. Does the social function of property help to bridge the differences between human rights and political economy? Would it be able to address the issues of structural gender inequalities in access to and control over property?
3. Is there a place for identity politics, e.g. race, gender, and ethnicity, in the framework for the political economy of developmental states? If yes, how? If no, why not? Relatedly, how can developmental states promote women’s human rights, particularly in terms of social protection?
The late 1990s have witnessed a backlash against women’s rights by religious fundamentalists, along with a resurgence of identity politics in the context of globalization where grievances and dislocations are also fuelled by global economic governance and national development policies that have increased inequalities between and within regions and nations.
These policies have exacerbated the experience of poverty, humiliation and powerlessness among a growing number of disenfranchised people that have joined the fundamentalist groups, and fostered the resurgence of patriarchal norms and practices that violate women’s rights. In many instances, the democratic space for contestation and dialogue has been shrinking as political institutions fell under the control of religious authorities, while the religious doctrines and cultural traditions – notably the ‘protection’ of women - invoked by fundamentalist groups have proved to serve political ends, as exemplified in the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, that George Bush justified by the need to rescue Afghan women from the Taliban.
The question of secular governance has been brought to the fore by the convergence of several factors at both international and national level: the international developments around the War on Terror, including the debates over an alleged ‘clash of civilizations’ and the rise of ‘communitarianism’; the regulatory measures in relation to the Islamic veil in France; the political prominence gained by radical religious groups in different countries - ranging from the US Christian right; the Hindu right; the Jewish right; fundamentalist muslims; etc.
Some Key Questions
1. The denial of sexual and reproductive rights is a key feature of the fundamentalist backlash against women. From a gender perspective, however, women are not only the victims of fundamentalist movements. They are also actively involved in these movements and support regulatory and legal reforms that perpetuate women’s subordination in the name of religion and tradition, even though very few of them are found in the elite segments of the power structures. One well-known example is the 2002 anti-Muslim Hindu nationalist movement in Gujarat, which perpetrated sexual violence and atrocities against both women and men. What role does sexual violence play in social and political restructuring in such ethnicized conflicts? What are the factors that determine the appeal of such movements to women?
2. There is a large consensus among feminists around the view that secular governance is more conducive to the protection and fulfillment of women’s rights. This consensus notwithstanding, there are unresolved issues raised by the universal conception of citizenship underpinning secular governance, which is built with both heteronormativity and elite males in a given society as the norms. For instance, African feminist activists and researchers contend that this dominant conception is not adequate for the African postcolonial context where women’s citizenship is still largely defined by ascribed social relations of subordination, and their relations with the state are mediated by men, kin or communities. It is even more inadequate in the context of globalization where an “internal patriarchal closing of ranks’’ occurs as social subgroups or communities strive for their specific interests and rights in relation to the broader national community. In such a context, women at the community level are often forced to accept community culture and values defined by subordination. Is it possible to reconcile identity-based claims under secular governance and women’s rights? How?
Although it has been explicitly recognized that historically industrialized countries have created the climate change problem, they have yet to assume the greatest share of responsibility for development dilemmas that come with it. Instead they continue to deny their historical and current responsibilities and pass the burden of mitigation and adaptation onto developing countries. This is apparent in the substance of inter-governmental discussions, which have not been about decisive changes in patterns of over-consumption and production or long-term structural changes to the unsustainable nature of the neo-liberal economic system. Rather, deliberations and negotiations emphasize ways and means to sustain the existing patterns and approaches to continue meeting the global resource needs of the North while they simultaneously push for technological and market-based solutions where transnational corporations will make the most out of the climate crisis.
Market and technical ‘fixes’ to climate change, such as carbon trading, agrofuels, nanotechnology, geo-engineering, and synthetic biology, are at the center of these discussions and are part of capitalism’s response to the climate, food and fuel crises. Yet these solutions are not neutral in their design or effect and will ultimately undermine food sovereignty, threaten to appropriate the biological resources and livelihoods of peoples and disrupt the systems of ecological balances for the entire planet.
The dominant patterns of production and consumption are heavily influenced by corporations in concentrated industrial structures that contribute to the widening of social inequities. New technologies introduced within a socio-political setting of inequality can only exacerbate the gap between the rich and poor. Worse, these new technologies can harm marginalized groups. Oftentimes, users and recipients of technological solutions are excluded from the entire process of conception to production to release and regulation. Critical questions regarding ownership and control, choice sets and alternatives, risk assessments and precautionary measures, and responsibility and liability are seldom raised in democratic settings. The governance of science and technology need not be left to the Luddites but precautionary and democratic procedures are needed in order for technologies to play a constructive role in social transformation.
Some Key Questions
1. What are the convergences of these technologies in the various socio-cultural spaces as they fulfill their role of “solving climate change” while “meeting consumer demand”?
2. Technology is presented in various development forums as possessing miraculous properties. Frustrations with this approach partly stems from the control that transnational corporations have over the production of technology and knowledge attached to them. Counter-proposals, including those from feminists, have sometimes used indigenous knowledge and “traditional-natural”, perhaps even non-Western, approaches as foundations for a different way of thinking. What are the major contributions of these discourses to our understanding of the political process of development?
3. What global governance structures are over these technologies at present? What are some of the North-South dimensions of the balance of power. How have these governance structures dealt with the interconnections between science, justice and ethics?
Much has been said about the feminization of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, and how gender roles and relations influence its course and impacts. Indeed, in most societies, it has been noted that women and girls face heavier risks of HIV/AIDS infection than men do, because of their subordinate economic and social status. In Africa where women are the most affected, it has been demonstrated that the great majority of cases occur in long-term stable relationship, and result from the sexual activities of their marital partners outside the relationship or other channels such as drug use (UNFPA, 2005; IPPF, 2006). There is also ample evidence of the discrimination against women when it comes to information, care, support and treatment. Even in the uncounted and invisible care economy that is mainly performed by women and serves as a substitute for public health services in resource-constrained African countries, there are critical gender biases against women, as evidenced in the fact that family resources are more likely to be used for the treatment and care of ill males rather than females (UNAIDS, 2001, cited in AAWORD 2003).
On the other hand, both the debates and interventions on HIV/AIDS have significantly evolved over the last decades, from a single focus on the disease and its consequences, to a broader and in-depth understanding of its determinants and underlying causes, including the interconnections between gender identity, sexuality and HIV/AIDS, and more recently between violence against women and HIV/AIDS (UNIFEM and ActionAid, 2009). With respect to gender identity, the debate at the international level has reached a turning point in 2001, with the controversy over the participation of a representative of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission in the HIV/AIDS Special Session, and the emergence of sexual conflicts that were widely publicized by the media.
It is important to note that the evolution of these conflicts is intertwined with that of the macroeconomic and geopolitical agendas : whereas the connection between sexuality and macro aspects of development was recognized through the fact that the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS were considered as a Global Public Good issue in 2001, as evidenced in the creation of the Global Fund for HIV/AIDS, after 2005 this connection has tended to be overshadowed by the combination of the neo-conservative attempts to reduce the agenda of the fight against HIV/AIDS to abstinence, and the increasing marketization of health services under neo-liberal globalization.
The conflicts related to sexuality should not be seen as a confrontation between feminists and other actors such as the Gay and Lesbian movements, but as the reflection of the evolving re-construction of sexualities in the global context of accelerated economic, technological, social and political change. However, they have practical implications that can entail dilemmas for feminist strategies. With respect to HIV/AIDS, they have been translated into marked divisions between women’s organizations and other groups in terms of access to resources. In particular, women activists working to address the feminization of HIV/AIDS are often drowned out by other groups of the HIV/AIDS movement, such as the treatment activists.
Some Key Questions
1. How have the global and national policy approaches changed over time? What is the empirical evidence on who is affected and where?
2. How has the global institutional architecture for HIV/AIDS evolved over time? What are its strengths and weaknesses?
3. Are there experiences of fruitful ways forward at policy and organizational levels?
Political and policy advocacy around sexuality issues and related areas has evidently become more visible both at the national and global levels, as exemplified by the international debates on HIV/AIDS, sexual rights and more recently, the articulation of human rights principles to tackle discrimination and violence related to sexual orientation and gender identity (Yogyakarta Principles; December 2008 GA Declaration). Social movements, including importantly the feminist movement, have been key to crafting the concept of sexual rights at the UN level. This concept goes beyond identity politics, and tackles issues of violence, race, and disease prevention, as well as pleasure, autonomy and self-determination. At the same time, the feminist conceptual and advocacy efforts have contributed to the establishment of a broader and inclusive human rights framework in relation to sexuality and reproduction.
The HIV/AIDS epidemic and the emergence of the LGBT movement have also been key factors in putting sexuality on the policy agenda and in the adoption of the sexual rights concept. However, the reality on the ground points out that activist practices are still largely determined by identity politics, and that the political differences between feminists, LGBT and other groups have not been bridged. The experience with global UN processes has exposed these weaknesses, including the inability to use the potential of the sexual rights framework as an inclusive platform for coalition building among the different groups and with larger constituencies in order to effect the desired global change.
In terms of feminist strategies, the issue of coalition building has taken another dimension in light of several developments such as the changing construction of sexualities; the fundamentalist backlash against women’s rights; the privatization of health systems; and the potential impacts of the systemic global crises. As history tells us, all these political and economic developments shape not only gender relations and identities, but also sexuality.
Some Key Questions
1. How have sexuality, sexual orientation and gender identity evolved in theory and practice, and what are the strengths, weaknesses and challenges of current concepts?
2. What is the potential of the interface between sexual orientation and gender identity, and what are its challenges?
3. What is the potential of the interface between feminism and gender identity, and what are its challenges?
4. What could be the bottom-lines for political negotiation, coalitions and alliances?
Contemporary wars occur in the sites of the most severe social divisions, calling forth multiple forms of crisis all at once (Petchesky and Laurie 2007). The nature of conflict and war has changed from predominantly inter-state to intra-state conflict with civilians, mainly women and children being severely affected. At the same time, militarization has increasingly been used for ensuring political stability in internal politics and paving the way for militarized globalization across national boundaries.
Conflict and attendant militarization are often buttressed by juridical situations that suspend the normal rule of law with the introduction of emergency powers and repressive legislation creating a ‘state of exception’ in which citizens are reduced to ‘bare life’ stripped of their ordinary rights (Agamben 2005). In such militarized environments, law and order and accountable governance are suspended for military ends. This environment results in the disintegration of democratic rights, such as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of mobility, among others. Thus, the state of exception becomes the norm.
The lines dividing intra-state and inter-state conflict are often blurred. Secessionist claims may be supported--militarily, economically or politically--by other sovereign states. Or, armed conflicts over natural resources can cross borders, internationalising conflicts and making their resolution even more complicated to achieve.
As the horrors of contemporary wars and conflict increase so has the need for humanitarian assistance. However, the principle of humanitarianism which is theoretically grounded on the concept of apolitical neutrality needs to be challenged as it remains silent in the face of a spectrum of violations perpetuated by both state and non state actors. In the post 9/11 context, humanitarianism is also challenged by the political objective of selective military intervention and the responsibility to protect. Humanitarianism is thus not detached from politics and must be based on the insistence that human rights and humanitarian law should be respected in all arenas of conflict from the local to the global.
Militarization is integrally linked to systemic violence and together with armed conflict and civil war has played a major role in shaping and changing women’s lives. As violent conflict kills, maims and destroys peoples, economies and livelihoods, development goals and achievements are reversed in climates of insecurity. Development and human security are therefore intimately related—one cannot be achieved without the other.
Whether as survivors of conflict, active combatants or agents of conflict transformation, women are forced to live in the context of globalized militarization. With little alternative means of employment in the context of the breakdown of rural economies, mothers and wives have come to accept organized armed groups, including the military, as the sole avenue of employment for their sons and husbands (and perhaps, even for themselves). Along with this has been the rise in the numbers of widows and female-headed households.
However, women are not merely victims of conflict, nor are men the sole perpetrators of violence. This calls for a problematization of the notion of victimhood with regard to both women and men. Responding to the gendered nature of conflict and conflict resolution therefore requires a nuanced understanding of the multiple roles played by men and women and how aspects of masculinity and femininity are reproduced and reconstructed through armed conflict and processes of transition towards peace.
Some Key Questions
The international community forbids war as a way to settle differences but the world still needs international rules to deal with armed conflicts. At the same time, the UN Charter has not completely outlawed the use of force, particularly in terms of a nation-state’s defense against attacks on their territory and in response to the use of force. The UN Charter also does not prohibit the use of force in internal conflicts, except under the 1977 2nd Optional Protocol to the Geneva Charter. Chapter VII of the UN Charter also allows for the use of force in collective action to maintain or restore international peace and security. In the context of the “war on terror”, what is the role and responsibility of the international community to ensure the dismantling of states of exception? Should states of exception be a limit to the sovereignty of states? In militarized environments, when states of exception are the norm, citizenship would somehow lose meaning. What options are available to these “citizens caught in the middle” of a repressive state machinery and militarized counter-forces that would re-establish democratic and accountable mechanisms for the protection of rights?
Security is often defined in one-dimensional terms—as the protection of the territorial state from external or internal enemies and is inevitably predicated on militarism, in terms of its policies as well as its practice. Security in this context has thus been a preoccupation of the patriarchal state bent on preserving national interests. Militarism has increasingly been used for ensuring political stability in internal politics and paving the way for militarized globalization across national boundaries. What other dimensions of security should be taken into account when nation-states attempt to preserve national interests? How do these other dimensions of security relate with state formation processes in a context when the dominant state structures are heavily contested? What is the relationship between security and development? When taking humanitarian assistance into account, where is this located in the development discourse?
How do we problematize the notion of victimhood with regard to both women and men in the context of militarization? How do we understand the multiple roles played by men and women and how aspects of masculinity and femininity are reproduced and reconstructed through armed conflict and processes of transition towards peace?
The challenges of responding to the global financial crisis arrive at the heels of market-oriented policy frameworks that have undoubtedly influenced late 20th century economic reforms. Financialization at the core of 21st century capitalist production has meant that profit generation depends all the more on returns from financial transactions rather than production and commodity trades (Epstein, ed. 2006). For rich countries, holders of financial assets account for much larger shares of national income. The increasing importance of the financial sector of the economy has also meant that macroeconomic policy create an environment of high interest rates for higher returns on financial instruments and lower inflation in order to keep real money values steady. These have had dire effects on the non-financial sector, particularly for agriculture and manufacturing. Asset bubbles and sharp fluctuations in commodities prices have created havoc on the ability of peoples to meet basic needs such as food and housing.
These trends have resulted in a profound modification of the public-private balance, affecting employment generation, sustainability of livelihoods, the provision of services, as well as, regulation and governance. In many inter-governmental spaces, developing country governments have been fighting vigorously for greater policy space to pursue their developmental goals. Debates on the role of the state and relevance of sovereignty have become increasingly lively.
Where is the place for social reproduction in the new world and how do we redistribute resources and opportunities? How do we put an end to the production and reproduction of inequalities by neoliberal policies? The gendered impacts of the global crisis have been raised under this political context: that impinges upon the time burdens of women; that women absorb care burdens even more as market-based services or public services become less accessible; higher unemployment rates, or women increasingly being marginalized into the informal sector, or worsening of working conditions. This describes the fate of women with every crisis.
The reconfiguration and realignment of international political relations towards a multi-polar world brings its own set of complexities to feminist challenges against unjust power structures. States and governments have attempted to assert for a structure in global economic governance. Yet, these new poles of accumulation and new centers of power, such as the large, middle-income countries, have not translated their actions into new directions and strategies for socio-political transformation.
Some Key Questions
1. The Stiglitz Commission has presented some of the most progressive proposals for the reform of the international financial and monetary system and its governance in support of the pursuit of more balanced development. How well do these proposals respond to governance issues raised by financialization? Can feminist economics provide further guidance on these reform and governance issues? If so, in what ways? Or, should feminists be content with heterodoxy? Why or why not?
2. The process of state formation is an important foundation for the pursuit of progressive policies and alternative paradigms. “Governance” has become a “technical issue” regarded as the effectiveness of institutions in devising the correct set of incentive structures and efficient delivery mechanisms. There is also the valorization of technocratic economic policymaking that has become an exclusionary process for feminist activists. Has political economy lost its ability to raise issues of “power” and “powerlessness” after decades of policies that have produced weak states instead of developmental states? Is there a feminist political economy that can produce an empowering process for women and feminists?
3. Feminists have used social reproduction and the care economy to expand the realm of the economy and the purpose of economics. How useful has this approach been in confronting neoliberalism and the globalization of financial markets? What distinct elements of an alternative development approach does feminist economics bring?
In the vast terrain of global environmental change, there are massive impacts on livelihoods and survival and thus, on women’s work burdens. It has created a situation where the hungry have to defend their right to food while the environmentally-conscious insist on the right to alternative fuels. The issues come to fore in respect of agro-fuels. Developed country governments are creating incentives to switch from petroleum products to plant-based fuels. The push towards large-scale manufacture of these agro-fuels has created tensions over land use, which has intensified in regions where food security continues to be a challenge. At the same time, “a second Green Revolution” is also being proferred as the solution to food security. In addition to the traditional approach of genetically-engineered crops, massive investments in irrigation, expansion of the use of pesticides and fertilizers, the second wave will include biotechnology and private capital investment.
Financial markets have also contributed to the distortions in the search for solutions to climate change and food security. On the one hand, carbon trading and pollution rights are expected to become a specialist market that will generate new sources of profit. On the other hand, the crash of the US housing mortgage market has led profit seekers to the commodities futures markets that consequently created serious price fluctuations on food prices resulting in some instances in food riots. Neither meeting in Copenhagen nor Rome dealt adequately with these issues. Indeed, weak state capacities have contributed to the slow response to the challenges raised by climate change.
Some Key Questions
1. What are the proposed new market based mechanisms and what risks do they pose? What is the controversy around REDD and is it possible for this mechanism to respect the rights of indigenous peoples? What are the differences between Greenhouse Development Rights and ecological debt calculations?
2. Climate change mitigation and adaptation as well as disaster prevention and response would pay little attention to women’s specific needs and concerns. The impact of climate change on women would follow from their weaker socio-economic positions. At the same time that women’s vulnerable positions are highlighted, vulnerability has also resulted in the unintended consequence that women as holders of rights and as agents of change are unrecognized by policy and programme responses. How do we overcome this dilemma?
The global women’s movement can boast of important achievements in the area of human rights, where women’s rights are increasingly recognized. At the global institutional level, the combined advocacy efforts of human rights defenders and women’s rights activists have secured strong and consistent support to the principles of gender equality and women’s rights. The appointment of a Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and of a feminist to the post of Independent Expert on Cultural Rights; the inclusion of women’s rights issues in the outcome documents of most global processes, along with the establishment of mechanisms such as the Human Rights Council and its representatives at regional and national levels are among the recent advances resulting from these advocacy efforts. In parallel, political and policy advocacy around sexuality issues and related areas has evidently become more visible both at the national and global levels, as exemplified by the international debates on HIVJAIDS, sexual rights and more recently, the articulation of human rights principles to tackle discrimination and violence related to sexual orientation and gender identity (Yogyakarta Principles; December 2008 GA Declaration).
In spite of these advances, the implementation of the international conventions on women’s rights remains problematic. Furthermore, there are unresolved issues related to the seemingly gender neutral human rights standards that are applied, which do not recognize differences and promote a universal conception of citizenship built with both heteronormativity and elite males in a given society as the norms. The universalistic assumptions about women, men, and gender relations underlying human rights frameworks are compounded by their inability to take into account the inter-relations between race, class, imperialism and other structural inequalities.
All these issues are taking place against the background of the disjunctures and widening inequalities of the fierce new world created by unleashed neoliberal globalization, where millions of people are routinely denied their basic rights to food, health, housing and work, just to name a few. One of the challenges that has been pointed out by some analysts (Tsikata, 2001) is the fact that human rights frameworks are being promoted within this neoliberal framework, which remains unquestioned. At the global level, this challenge is reflected in the tug of war over the convention on the right to development.
Some Key Questions
1. “If a human rights framework is our core analytical tool, then we need to articulate clearly the connection between women’s rights and the rights of others” (Antrobus and Sen 2004).
2. Human Rights approaches tend to be tilted towards reinforcing identity politics in their implementation. Do we need to move beyond this or not?
Many analysts and experts alike pronounced the decline of the American empire when the US housing mortgage crisis hit creating shockwaves in major financial centers and eventually turning into a global economic crisis. The crippling of the economies of the developed world has paved the way for the rise of other centers of power. The foundations for these realignments, however, were laid well before the crisis.
Since the start of the millennium, the Group of 8 began to invite
|
