Theorising politics, Global Poverty

080004503

Word count: 2602

Throughout recent years, the World in which we live has witnessed an increase in public interest in the area of Global poverty. It appears that, given statistics, the World’s high income countries could alleviate poverty without any major sacrifices. Although the issue of poverty seems somewhat straight forward: it can be alleviated without major sacrifices, in reality it is indeed a complex and contentious issue. Questions have been raised regarding the causes of this Global poverty, the question of what can be done about it and also the question of who should be doing it. Should this alleviation of poverty be carried out in a charitable level, or is the alleviation of Global poverty a moral obligation to be carried out by those responsible for it? These are the kinds of questions that have been dumbfounding political theorists for many years. The afore mentioned questions have been pushed to the surface mainly by those theorists who endorse Cosmopolitanism. Firstly, what is Cosmopolitanism? In its current form, it bodes well to the attitude that every person in the World is entitled to basic human rights. In terms of Global poverty this is seen as a direct violation of these rights. The question has also been asked whether wealthy societies and their Governments are responsible for Global poverty. One will assess this notion with reference to the arguments of Thomas Pogge. Pogge himself is a German philosopher who is currently the Director of the Global Justice Program and Leitner Professor of Philosophy and International Affairs at Yale University. Interestingly, Pogge’s dissertation at Harvard was supervised by another well known theorist, John Rawls. The typical cosmopolitan belief that Global poverty constitutes a direct violation of universal human rights is not without its own problems. Identifying global poverty as a violation of human rights does not say who is responsible or who should make it better. In order to make his argument, Pogge must convince us that the wealthy states and their Governments are in some shape or form responsible for Global poverty and finds himself stating three morally significant connections between wealthy states and the Global poor, these being, history, resources and the global economic order. By assessing some of Pogge’s prominent works one shall conclude to whether his view that the wealthy states and Governments are responsible for Global poverty has been convincing.

One shall now discuss Pogge’s views of poverty in terms of healthcare, alluding back to the notion that he feels the wealthy societies and their governments are responsible for this Global poverty. As one has mentioned before, the term Cosmopolitanism is a very old idea, which is currently associated with the claim that every person in the World is entitled to basic human rights. Let us take this concept of human rights further. Article 25 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights states that: ‘everyone has a right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself and of his family, including food, housing and medical care’. According to Pogge, Global poverty can be seen as a direct violation of these human rights, and lays the blame mostly at the feet of the wealthier countries. Let us now assess the topic of the access to medicines for a person from a third World country compared to that of a person from a wealthy country. Pogge, in his paper ‘Access to Medicines’ differentiates strongly between the medical help received by each of these two groups of people. For examples stakes, Pogge describes a Cambodian teenager who rents out her body and suffers violence on a daily basis with that of a tourist. Pogge states that in a few years this teenager will be HIV positive, however will be unable to afford the medicine she requires in order to survive. Subsequently she will die in her twenties. In direct contrast, the tourist will enjoy quality medical care and live a long and fruitful life. One would state at this early stage that there is no moral problem. The teenager who is renting out her body is using, in ones own opinion, her basic human right of freedom of choice, thus choosing her preferred option. If she did not have this choice, in terms of human rights, she would be worse off. In addition to choosing to rent her body out, the teenager is making this choice whilst understanding the risks involved, so even though a travesty of an early death is likely to occur, in many ways this teenager has chosen her preferred path. Pogge would give extreme critique to this view. In his paper ‘Access to Medicines’ he considers the same situation seven years into the future. The tourist has had a coronary bypass while the teenager is losing her battle with AIDS. Pogge then states that the cost of his bypass surgery is two hundred times that of an annual supply of antiretrovirals the teenager needs. Pogge asks if it is right to let this woman die at the age of twenty three. In order to answer this question, one must firstly understand Pogge’s arguments for trying to convince us that wealthy states are in some manner responsible for global poverty. With reference to the example one has stated, two of the three of Pogge’s morally significant connections between wealthy states and the Global poor have been brought to the surface. These are those of both history and the Global economic order. With reference back to Pogge’s text, he wants us to look into the past and question such conditions as economic distribution and market allocations. He wants us to ask ourselves why the Cambodian teenager was allowed to be in the position she was actually in. Pogge then makes us aware that the girl was born into a poor family in the country, which was drawn into the Vietnam War. The war ended in victory for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. In 1979 they were ousted by Vietnamese forces, however, for Pogge the most important aspect of this was that with support from the somewhat wealthier countries of China, USA, UK and even the organization of the UN the Khmer Rouge continued to wage a civil war, which left the girls family in a state of destitution. In relation to Pogge, this makes his argument that wealthy states and their governments are in some way responsible for Global poverty quite strong as none of the afore mentioned can be seen as this teenagers responsibility. In relation to a Market system one would claim that in its best form this could put poverty to good use. It is fair, in ones own opinion that those who use resources poorly should thus become poorer and be given fewer resources to waste. One would further argue that this is good because it enables resources that are scarce to be used in a more controlled manner. Pogge however would argue against this view, giving a further example of two very different people. This time Pogge uses the ‘man who wasted heating oil last year’ and the ‘woman who overspent on her credit card’. Pogge agrees to let the market constrain them to cut back their spending, however this, according to Pogge should never lead to their freezing or starving to death. It is widely accepted now that human rights impose not only negative duties not to violate these rights, but also positive duties to protect them. Pogge claims that current international rules which are developed by the wealthy countries contribute hugely to the deprivations amongst the disadvantaged nations, and are therefore said to be unjust. Pogge goes further by stating that those who are responsible for these rules are not only failing to protect human rights, but are also violating them. There are some shocking statistics with regards to poverty in Pogge’s text ‘Access to Medicines’. A program that would allow a source of safe drinking water to a billion people and sanitation to a further two billion people is estimated to cost around seven billion dollars annually. In healthcare, the cost of implementing vaccines in the seventy five least developed countries is only two billion dollars annually. So, with the example of access to medicines can it be said that wealthy societies and their Governments are responsible for Global Poverty? From the case study Pogge gives regarding the Cambodian teenager and the tourist, Pogge’s arguments are strong. From the outset one would have argued that the teenager was choosing her own destiny, however with Pogge’s argument that during the civil war the wealthier countries of the USA, UK, China and indeed organizations such as the UN accounted for part of the devastation of the country, it is clear that one cannot deny this fact. One will move on to discuss more statistics and Pogge’s arguments.

This is a preview of the whole essay

In Pogge’s text ‘Priorities of global justice’ he makes us aware that his greatest surprise is that wealthy states have done little, even under exceptionally favorable conditions to eradicate global poverty. For Pogge this was surprising because the ‘fading of the Soviet bloc’ gave developed states better opportunities to incorporate their moral values and concerns into their foreign police and into an international institutional order. As one has mentioned before, one of Pogge’s connections between wealthy states and the global poor is that of the global economic order. In Pogge’s text ‘World Poverty and human rights: cosmopolitan responsibilities and reform’ Pogge gives some facts regarding the global economic order. Fourteen percent of the World’s population is undernourished. Sixteen percent lack access to safe drinking water. Forty percent lack access to basic sanitation and worryingly eight hundred and fifty four million adults are illiterate. In the same text Pogge wishes us to comprehend that it is people in wealthy western countries that are harming the World’s poor. He urges us to understand that international institutions have ways to facilitate the corruption perpetuated by national institutions. In Pogge’s text ‘Poverty and human rights’ he is increasingly critical of the so called resource and borrowing privileges. These privileges allow illegitimate political leaders to sell natural resources and borrow money in the name of the particular country and its people. In Pogge’s opinion these privileges that wealthy society extend to oppressive leaders of states which are impoverished plays a critical role in maintaining poverty. Furthermore, to Pogge these privileges given to the oppressive rulers are by no means an accident. They exist only because they are in the interest of the wealthy states. The privilege of resource allows to guarantee a supply of raw materials for goods enjoyed by members of wealthy states and the borrowing privilege allows financial institutions of wealthy states to issue massive loans which are all too often used for the wrong reasons. Yet again Pogge’s view that wealthy states and governments are responsible for global poverty is proved to be strong. Just as in the previous example of the Cambodian teenager selling her body in order to save her family from a life of destitution, where the situation she found herself in was in many ways due to the wealthy states in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, this question is raised again. This time Pogge is being critical of the institutions of wealthy states whom he claims are facilitating the plight of the World’s poorest people. In particular in his text ‘Poverty and human rights’ his increasing critique of the resource and borrowing privileges are allowing the maintenance of poverty.

As one has pointed out, it is widely accepted that human rights and poverty go hand in hand. However it is clearly noted by Pogge in his texts that wealthy states and their governments have both the power and incentives to shape rules in order to extend their own advantage. As one has mentioned, Pogge states that current international rules which are shaped by wealthier countries contribute massively to deprivations among the poor and are said to be unjust. He goes further to say that those who are responsible for the implementation of these rules are actively violating human rights. Let us take the example of the United States. Contributions to political campaigns can indeed buy legislative outcomes. Between 1979 and 2005 such laws structuring the US economy expanded the national income share of the top one percent of the population from ten to twenty two percent, while slashing the share of the bottom half from twenty six to thirteen percent. There are of course initiatives by governments and non governmental institutions in order to ‘help’ the poorer states. Pogge would argue that even through the International Monetary Fund, they are exerting pressures on poorer poverty stricken countries to reduce their governmental spending in areas such as health and education. In addition to this is the ‘brain drain’ which annually deprives poorer countries of badly needed doctors and nurses and of the training they had received. There are many more examples in which wealthy nations can be seen to be responsible in some part to global poverty. Pogge tells us that there are trade rules that permit wealthy countries to unfairly advantage their own firms through huge subsidies that for many of the poor nations destroy what would otherwise have been their best export opportunity. The most prominent of these being the Common Agriculture Policy. Once more Pogge’s arguments are strong. Wealthy societies seem not only to have been responsible in some part for global poverty, but with the information one has presented seem to be keeping this poverty alive, even though, as Pogge suggests wealthy nations could in fact alleviate global poverty with little sacrifice.

The strength of Pogge’s arguments prove that in some part wealthy societies and their governments are responsible for global poverty, however one must mention that there are also critiques of this. The most common critique is that cosmopolitans misdiagnose the causes of global poverty and argue that poverty is much more likely to occur because of conditions within poor societies such as corrupt governments or their own domestic order. With that being said, Pogge’s argument is still convincing. With reference to ones first example of the Cambodian teenager selling her body. On the outset one would maintain that this was her own personal choice. However on deeper evaluation, Pogge makes it clear that the girl was trying to save her family from a life of destitution, which had been forced upon them because of history. In this case the fact that wealthy nations of China, USA and the UK endorsed the Khmer Rouge whom subsequently continued to wage a civil war. In addition to this, the fact that international institutions are facilitating corruption, particularly by the resources and borrowing policy which exists for no other reason than because it is in the interest of wealthy states. Pogge further cements his argument by concentrating on initiatives by governments and NGO’s. The fact that even the International Monetary Fund are exerting pressures onto poor countries to reduce their government spending in areas such as health and education bodes well for his argument. Indeed Pogge argues many ways in which wealthy societies and their governments are responsible for global poverty and his arguments cannot go unnoticed or unacknowledged. Throughout this paper there are many instances in which wealthy societies have oppressed the global poor. None more so than the last example of trade rules which openly permit wealthy countries to unfairly advantage their own firms through huge subsidies which could destroy what may have been the best export opportunities for these poorer nations. Although there are many critiques of Pogge, on the whole his arguments are sound.

References

Brown, Chris. Sovereignty, rights and justice in international political theory today
Pogge, Thomas, Access to medicines
Pogge, Thomas, Freeson from poverty as a human right: Who owes what to the very poor?
Pogge, Thomas, Global Justice
Pogge, Thomas, World poverty and human rights: cosmopolitan responsibilities and reforms