World Human Rights Day

You may not know it, but today (10^th December) is World Human Rights Day. Coinciding the with the day that Liu Xiaobo fails to collect his Nobel Peace Prize, awarded for his tireless efforts to promote greater respect for human rights in China, this year’s celebration is a good time to reflect on the billions of people worldwide for whom the very concept of ‘human rights’ must seem like a meaningless abstraction.

I recently returned from Bangladesh, where I spent four days visiting projects supported by UK charity One World Action. Among other things, One World Action works with local NGO Nagorik Uddyog to promote the rights of the 5.5 million Dalits currently living in Bangladesh. Dalits (often referred to as ‘Untouchables’) represent the lowest castes in the traditional Hindu hierarchy, historically engaged in trades and occupations that are considered ‘unclean’ such as sweeping, cobbling, disposing of dead bodies and manual scavenging (a euphemism for sewerage work). In an endemically poor country, these people are the poorest of the poor; Socially, economically and politically marginalised, Dalits are routinely denied even their most basic rights, ignored in public and despised in private.

The plight of Dalits living in India is well documented, having been brought to light by Ghandi as early as the 1930s. However, as most of the Dalits living in Bangladesh were brought in from India under the colonial regime, the majority-Muslim society has until recently regarded caste-based exclusion as an ‘Indian problem’ that does not concern Bangladesh, or at least a ‘Hindu problem’ that does not concern the vast majority of Bangladeshi society.

In the two days I spent visiting Dalit communities in and around Dhaka, the idea that Dalit exclusion is not a Bangladeshi problem became patently ridiculous.

Most Dalits in Dhaka live in so-called ‘colonies’, physically demarcated areas squeezed into the most crowded parts of the city. The entrance of the first colony I enter is marked by a discreet arch, covering a tiny alleyway which leads into a maze of narrow streets beyond. Like Platform 9¾, you would not know it was there unless you were shown. Hidden away like this the colony seems to physically embody the marginalisation and exclusion of its inhabitants; out of sight, out of mind. Our driver Mintu had no idea such areas of town existed and was visibly taken aback by what we saw.

The first thing that hits you in the confusion of smells; open sewers mixed with frying spices and fresh laundry hung over the already crowded alleys, creating a kind of bunting of colourful dripping clothes. Then the inhabitants- not only the dozens of children that we gather as we walk around, but the thousands of flies that make the colony their home. As we tour round a maze of streets we see houses which are no more than small rooms, often home to families of eight people or more. We see the temples and community halls that provide the only large spaces for the community gather. We walk past the toilet block, an open space for showering with no separate areas for men and women, meaning people are forced to wash over their saris and lungis, denied even the privacy of their morning ablutions. The shared WCs are so few in number that they attract an even greater density of flies, gut-churning smells and angry queues of people.

But among the chaos and the squalor you also get a keen sense of a community increasingly aware of its rights and increasingly able and willing to fight for them. I met young women who were studying for college degrees, and who had chosen, rather than escaping their roots, to come back into the community to teach and lead. I met mothers who had started women’s groups, providing the training, support and loans necessary to earn extra income and provide alternative occupations outside the traditional Dalit trades. And I met men and women who through groups such as Bangladesh Dalit Human Rights were advocating at the city and national levels to tackle Dalit exclusion, improve conditions and promote new laws to protect the human rights of all marginalised communities.

A rally organised by BDERM (Bangladeshi Dalit and Excluded Rights Movement) on my fourth and final day in Dhaka demonstrated just how far the movement has come in a few short years. Cars hooted their horns and cycle rickshaws rang their bells in solidarity as Dalit protesters marched past the National Museum proudly holding signs bearing a slogan that is hard to argue with: ‘Dalit Rights are Human Rights.’ As we marched with the crowd I looked to my left and saw that our driver Mintu had joined the protest, the newest convert to a growing movement.

The New Generation: how do we make the economy work for everyone, home and abroad?

Margaret Dantas Araujo, member of the Livelihoods and Resource Security Young Fabian Policy Development Group, uses the comprehensive spending review as a lens to look at arguments made in the just published Young Fabian pamphlet, The New Generation. We are very keen to hear what you think of the pamphlet – please let us know your thoughts by posting a comment. This is the fourth in a series of posts on ‘The New Generation’, which you can read by clicking here.

The ring-fencing of UK aid in the spending review is right and in the country’s interest. Right because even during these austere times we have a moral duty to help the world’s poorest people and in our interest because it plays an important role in making the world a more stable and prosperous place.

But that’s only half the story. The coalition has proposed a significant shift of focus in the aid budget towards failing and conflict-affected states. This approach risks ignoring the fundamental dilemmas of resource scarcity that underlie the real development challenges of the coming decade: the carbon intensive growth that underpins current development gains, the high inequalities present in many middle income economies and the huge increases in urban poverty.

Progressive development policy must begin with these dilemmas in mind, bridging development, environmental and distributive concerns. Failing to address these issues or the series of interdependent, systemic challenges they relate to – energy and food security, jobless growth, climate change, global governance – will leave the UK and developing countries more, not less vulnerable.

The most powerful way that the UK can lead in a changing world is by example. Domestic action towards sustainable development strengthens the moral and political foundations needed for a global role as catalyst and reformer, impacting positively upon the environment and the world’s most vulnerable. Cutting investments in UK renewable energy as the coalition government has done is short sighted and in the long run increases Britain’s dependence on energy imports and undermines our international efforts. Why should other countries invest in renewable energy if we do not?

The UK’s economy should be synonymous with sustainable products, design and construction, clean energy and technology, ethical consumers and attractive, green cities. These would be the true green shoots of a balanced British recovery and it is vital therefore that this moment is used to press for a new, greener, more equitable path to growth in Britain and overseas. The UK should push for the G20 to broaden its sights from the immediate and much needed reform of the global banking and financial system, towards green and equitable growth.

Without such leadership the $70 trillion held by investment funds ready to invest; such investment could help the least developed countries leapfrog dirty development by building low carbon energy infrastructure. Such investment could spur growth by investing in communications systems, such as broadband, that encourage entrepreneurship by enabling people to connect market information and local knowledge, enhance opportunities for civil society organisation and help in the provision of efficient and effective basic services.

This post originally appeared on Left Foot Forward.

Just what is Liberal Conservatism?

This week is set to be the International week of the 2010 Election campaign. So in theory, we should all understand a little more of what William Hague’s Liberal Conservatism is all about. Ahead of the week I’ve just read the Tory manifesto International affairs section and am still puzzled. I’m hoping, but not expecting a little more clarity during the week.

Rightly, the manifesto identifies that more than ever the interests of nation states are interconnected, economically and politically.  But the policy solutions still seem ideologically unclear and unsound.   

While the answers to Britain’s domestic challenges are met with a shrink-state response, the manifesto calls for “a concerted response from the state” in its international chapter.

There also seems to be a glaring contradiction in Conservative policy to the European single currency, varying between forthright hostility to a guarantee for the public to have their say:

“a Conservative government would never take the UK into the euro.”

And later “We will ensure that by law no future government can hand over areas of power to the EU or join the Euro without a referendum of the British people.”

Now, I’m not advocating that now is the right time to join the Euro, but a manifesto is always the right time to be clear what your position is.

The document is unclear of what One World Conservatism is or what Liberal Conservatism would achieve. But from the Tories foreign policy record, I don’t relish the prospect of these ideologies guiding British foreign policy.

Let’s not forget these things as we move into the international week of this election David Cameron went on a free trip to South Africa, funded by a lobbying group founded by a former member of the South African military intelligence to bust sanctions against South Africa. Let’s also not forget that when Labour took office our international aid budget was in decline and we where losing a beef war with Europe. And today in the European Parliament, the Tories lose more legislative proposals than the Liberals, Greens and Communists because of Hague and Cameron’s self-imposed exile from the mainstream grouping.

In the week ahead let’s continue to take a long hard look at the Tories and ask Cameron and Hague, just what is your vision for Britain in the world and where would we be if we took your advice?

Labour should build on trade, Europe and a revised interventionism for a fairer world

This article was originally published here for Progress on the 15th January 2010.

A Labour campaign on foreign policy should argue that the values which define our party should also define our international agenda. Values of internationalism, a global solidarity with those in greatest need, and the need to protect those who are vulnerable and suffering are traditional Labour values which we apply at home and should apply abroad. These are the cornerstone of our movement. They define our approach to all policy areas and separate us from our opponents.

We should focus on three key aspects in Labour foreign policy campaigns. Firstly, we should continue to use foreign policy as a vehicle for economic growth within our nation and beyond our borders. Secondly, we should commit to drawing up a new doctrine for intervention and, thirdly, we should not being afraid of leading in Europe and in other international institutions.

To take the first strand, Britain is a trading nation and needs access to the wider European market. As we move from recession to recovery our agenda for growth will require continued access to the global market to secure jobs and prosperity at home.

In the second instance, there is a need to reassess how and when interventionism occurs, and place it in a consistent framework. This should be founded on a clear relationship between morality and the rule of law. Interventionism cannot be founded upon hubris, neocolonial ambition or economic aspiration. The burden of intervention must also be carried by those who can share it, using international action for military and humanitarian causes.

And lastly, a key component of Labour’s international policy has been to recognise that the EU is more than just a market to trade with and should be used to strengthen Britain’s role in the world. However, there is a need to settle the economic argument that EU membership costs Britain more than we get in return. We must also defeat the political argument that pooling our strength leaves us weaker rather than stronger. In this international context Labour should continue to argue for reform of our global institutions such as the IMF and World Bank in order to secure a stronger system for global economics and build a more equal world.

British voters stand much to lose if a Tory government were to represent Britain in Europe again. Many of today’s Tories are obsessed by ‘process Europe’ and rarely by ‘policy Europe.’ We understand that Britain is strongest at the heart of Europe.

Labour has shown strong influence on the international stage. Those who want to tackle our energy and climate policies, to forge a fair way out of the economic crisis, to protect us from threats of terrorism, to continue to build a European economic area of shared prosperity and stable growth, and promote a positive agenda for the developing world know that Labour has delivered and will continue to do so.

The Tories meanwhile are isolated, alienated and on the wrong side of the argument. Hague’s liberal Conservative approach would result in a disastrous marriage of isolationism and inaction, a policy that leaves Britain vulnerable and alone, and the world a less fair place.

Labour recognises that the world has changed since the fall of the empires. It is Labour that understands that to achieve for one nation you have to work with others. Labour’s foreign policy is an agenda for a better Britain and a fairer world and that’s a cause well worth fighting for.

This is an abridged version of the international policy chapter from the Young Fabian report ‘Fast forward: The next generation of progressive politics’

Brian Duggan and Marie Loewe are, respectively, international officer and equalities officer of the Young Fabians

Labour Campaign for International Development

A number of Young Fabians have been involved in the establishment of the new Labour Campaign for International Development. Here, LCID Chair, David Taylor tells us what the organisation is about, and invites all YF members to the official launch with Rt Hon Douglas Alexander MP.

Labour has transformed the lives of many people in the last decade, and nowhere has the impact of a Labour Government been more acutely felt than in international development. For many of us, eradicating poverty is the reason we joined the Labour Party, and there is much to be proud of.

Since 1997, Labour has helped lift 3 million permanently out of poverty each year. We’ve helped get some 40 million children into school. Polio is on the verge of being eradicated and 3 million are now able to access life-preserving drugs for HIV and AIDS. 1.5 million people have improved water and sanitation services.

Tackling global poverty has been high on the agenda of our Party, and we want to keep it that way. That’s why we, a group of Labour activists, have recently set up Labour Campaign for International Development.

We want to keep international development high on Labour’s agenda, and to push our Government to build on its success and be bolder and go further still, in a similar way to our fraternal friends at SERA do on the environment.

We also want to use it as a vehicle to bring people who care about global poverty and other single issues in to the Labour Party. Be they young people engaging in politics for the first time, or former members who’ve turned away from party politics, we want to engage them.

First and foremost, we need them to vote Labour. In the lead up to the election, we’ll be scrutinising the Conservatives to show just how much damage they would do to everything we’ve fought for over the last decade. Even if their promise to match our pledge to spend 0.7% on aid could be believed, it is what they would spend our aid money on that is most damaging – the same failed private sector solutions that failed in the 1980s. No one must be complacent of the Tory threat, or think that a vote for the Greens or Lib Dems will bring any more than a Tory Government.

But we can and will be more positive than that. We’ve got a proud record on development and we intend to shout about it to anti-poverty campaigners. By encouraging them into the Party, we can gain from their skills and energy and, we hope, help invigorate the Party in the process.

LCID is a growing organisation, and we’d love to have your involvement. We’ve set up a blog with regular news and comment at LCID.org.uk, and you can become a fan of our Facebook page to get regular updates.

To formally launch LCID, the Rt Hon Douglas Alexander, Secretary of State for International Development, will be speaking at an event in the House of Commons on 02 February at 7pm. Please visit our website to RSVP.

We look forward to working with everyone in the Party over the coming weeks and months to keep Labour in Government transforming people’s lives and lifting millions out of poverty.

by David Taylor, Chair, Labour Campaign for International Development

Give me a break

This week, Nestle has announced that KitKat will be going Fairtrade, following Cadbury’s lead last year. I’m glad I prefer Twix.

Those who know me well are more than aware of my objections to the Fairtrade scheme. In brief, these objections include:

1. Minimum price guarantees incentivise wasteful production by distorting market signals. Farmers no longer respond to consumer demand, adjusting production accordingly (or exiting an industry where overcapacity exists). This is exactly how the CAP works. I doubt many supporters of Fairtrade would argue that CAP is a good idea, so why be overjoyed at the creation of another, albeit smaller, protectionist system?

2. Minimum price guarantees disincentivise technological innovation*. Why waste resources on new equipment when you’re guaranteed money for old rope?

3. Minimum price guarantees disincentivise improvements in quality of the product*. Actually, they incentivise the reverse – as a farmer, I can make a higher margin by allowing the quality of my product to degrade in the knowledge that I will continue to receive a minimum price.

4. The Fairtrade scheme creates an insider/outsider problem, which increases the living standards of some of the world’s poorest farm workers at the expense of those outside of the scheme, who become relatively less well off.

5. The Fairtrade scheme erodes entrepreneurialism. The scheme design creates a framework in which producers are incentivised to maximise their returns within the confines of the scheme, rather than what would be optimal within the economy as a whole.

Of course, some of these problems could be overcome if all participants within a market were part of the Fairtrade scheme – then competition between suppliers for contracts may at least partially reverse the effect on incentives the minimum price guarantee has. But in this scenario, the fair-trade foundation would set market prices, which is akin to command and control communism and thus not particularly attractive – resources are inefficiently allocated.

My biggest concern though relates to the implications of wholesale switching to fair-trade inputs by manufacturers. When multi-national organisations believe it is in their interest to switch to fair-trade inputs, they have obviously calculated that this will be commercially beneficial to them in the long run. In turn, this implies sufficient demand in the marketplace.

But increased demand amongst consumers implies they would rather pay more for the same product (and in some cases an inferior product) – the “guilt premium” – in order to alleviate the consequences of a fault with protectionist trade regimes, rather than put pressure on governments to dismantle the source of the problem (barriers to trade).

At the extreme, fair-trade consumerism absolves elected officials of the responsibilities to solve these problems at source. Surely this is a bad thing?

*I’m aware that the Fairtrade premium **could** be used for these ends, although it is not always the case that they are.