Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
[…] This post forms part of a cross-blog series on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development run by the IGC, Africa at LSE, and South Asia at LSE blogs. […]
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
Bryan S. Turner is a British sociologist researching in the area of human rights, citizenship, and religion. Having worked at universities in Europe, Asia, Australia, and the USA, processes of globalization and migration play a major role in his work. Currently, he is Professor of Sociology at the City University of New...
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
Caroline Kennedy, U.S. Ambassador to Japan, sits down with David to discuss her memories of the White House, her mother's strength in the wake of her father's death, her wide-ranging career from the New York City Dept. of Education to her current role in Asia, and more. To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
Tammy Duckworth, the U.S. Senator-elect from Illinois, talks with David Axelrod about her childhood in Southeast Asia, the harrowing day in Iraq when the helicopter she was co-piloting came under attack, her concerns with Donald Trump's reliance on the military to fill Cabinet posts, and what she hopes to accomplish in the U.S. Senate. To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
Despite conservation efforts, criminal elements are killing rhinos in record numbers due to demand from Asia, in particular Vietnam, China, Thailand and Malaysia, in the mistaken belief that rhino horn can help with things like hangovers or cure cancer. In 2009 it was feared that rhinos were being killed at 3 a month which was concerning enough given the low numbers of rhinos. In 2012, it had shot up to 2 a day in South Africa alone.
For lions, another iconic animal whose numbers are in decline, countries like Zambia and Botswana are banning hunting. Zambia for example has banned hunting on lions and leopards due to a big decline in their numbers, and because they believe tourism revenues by those who want to see these animals in the wild will bring in more revenue than blood sport tourism.
This small update to the conservation page has further details.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
Strikes on Iran Approved by Trump, Then Abruptly Pulled Back (The New York Times) hatr (Twitter) What We Know About Iran Shooting Down a U.S. Drone (The New York Time) The U.S. Has Turned Up Pressure on Iran. See the Timeline of Events. (The New York Times) Trump Adds Troops After Iran Says It Will Breach Nuclear Deal (The New York Times) U.S. Navy Says Mine Fragments Point to Iran in Tanker Attack (The New York Times) "Trumps Appetit auf einen Krieg ist begrenzt" (Süddeutsche Zeitung) Iran handelt, als hätte das Land nichts mehr zu verlieren (Süddeutsche Zeitung)Iran goes for "maximum counter-pressure" (Strategic Culture Foundation) Here`s John Bolton Promising Regime Change in Iran by the End of 2018 (The Intercept) Why Trump now wants talks with Iran (Asia Times) "Wir müssen uns an die Weltsicht Trumps gewöhnen" (Deutschlandfunk) DGAP Jahresbericht 2018/19 (DGAP)Arend Oetker (Wikipedia)
Berliner Mietendeckel
Fragen und Antworten zum "Mietendeckel" (Berlin.de)
Sprach-Regulierung im Netz
Statt Klarnamen: Digitales Gewaltschutzgesetz (Tagesspiegel)Verfassungsschutz: Akte noch da, aber gesperrt (hessenschau.de) "Wir müssen uns wehren" (Deutschlandfunk)
e-evidence: EU-weite Datenabfrage
An der deutschen Justiz vorbei (LTO)e-evidence (Netzpolitik.org)
PKW-Maut
Verkehrsminister Scheuer erklärt Pkw-Maut für gescheitert (Der Tagesspiegel) Andreas Scheuer (Twitter) Kosten der Pkw-Maut steigen auf 128 Millionen Euro (Der Tagesspiegel) Verkehrsminister Scheuer bedauert Urteil gegen PKW-Maut: "Ja, es ist bedauerlich" (YouTube)
Verabschiedung
Overcast Newsletter abonnieren
Bildnachweise
Iran-Karte: Open Street Map Verkehrsminister Scheuer
Hausmitteilung
Spenden: BankverbindungSpenden: Banking-Program mit BezahlCode-StandardSpenden: PaypalKuechenstud.io-NewsletterKuechenstud.io Shop"Lage der Nation" bei iTunes bewerten"Lage der Nation" bei Youtube"Lage der Nation" bei Facebook"Lage der Nation" bei Instagram "Lage der Nation" bei Twitter"Lage der Nation" in der Wikipedia
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
An estimated 266 million people worldwide are international migrants (see KNOMAD brief) and 47% of them are women (World Bank Gender Data Portal). On this International Migrants Day, December 18, we take an example from Indonesia to illustrate why a gender lens is useful for studying migration.
Indonesia is among the world's largest source countries for migrant workers, with an estimated 9 million Indonesians living and working overseas. A recent World Bank report notes that Indonesia's migrant workers are driven abroad by the lack of good job opportunities in the local labor market and relatively higher wages overseas. The latter is especially true for women. Female migrant workers make 5.3 times more than their previous domestic job compared to 3.6 times for male.
Dipping into harmonized cross-country sex-disaggregated data curated on the World Bank Gender Data Portal, we learn that only 1 in 2 Indonesian women are employed. Working women are predominantly self-employed. Only 42% have access to wage work in Indonesia, compared to 74% in Malaysia and 53% in the East Asia and Pacific region.
Male and female migrants face different opportunities and risks. An ongoing study by the World Bank evaluates the effectiveness of different ways of promoting safe migration practices. The baseline data collected from more than 13,000 Indonesians aged 18-40 suggests three key findings.
1. Few people know the procedures for documented migration, even when they are interested in migrating.
Only 12% of respondents who claim to be interested in migrating can name all the documents required to migrate (compared to 10% among those who are uninterested in migrating). There is no gender gap in information: men and women are equally poorly informed.
https://www.datawrapper.de/_/a1xti/
2. Where people get their information is correlated with how much they know and how they would migrate.
Women are much more likely to say they would get information from informal brokers or formal private labor placement offices, while men are more likely to get information from government offices, the internet, or friends. This difference in information channels is statistically significant.
Respondents who get information from formal sources are more knowledgeable—nearly twice as likely to know the required documents—than those who rely on informal sources. Information sources are also linked to where people plan to register or apply to migrate: people who get information from (informal) brokers are much more likely to apply through them as well.
3. Time constraints may play a role in making women more vulnerable to undocumented migration
Women are more likely to register with informal migration brokers while men are more likely to rely on government agencies such as labor offices for their job search. What explains this difference? A clue may lie in the figure below. Women without young children behave almost the same as their male counterparts. In contrast, women with young children are much more likely to register with a broker than men with children. Overall, women are 25% more likely than men to say they would register through a broker and 38% less likely to say they would register with a government labor office, a difference that is almost entirely driven by women with children under the age of 15.
Household roles and duties are not distributed evenly between men and women in many parts of the world, including Indonesia. Women are usually disproportionately responsible for unpaid household labor, including childcare, which limits their mobility. Seeking out formal sources of information about migration thus impose higher opportunity costs for women, who face greater time constraints. Labor offices and other government agencies are generally located far from the rural villages that are the source of many migrant workers. Documented migration in Indonesia is a lengthy and difficult process, imposing further time costs on female migrants. Informal brokers are a more convenient option as they are more likely to be located within villages, and are willing to visit prospective migrants at their homes and assist them with paperwork.
Why is this important?
We know that childcare plays an important role in mediating women's economic decisions, including participating in the labor market. A working paper by the World Bank East Asia & Pacific Gender Innovation Lab shows that improved access to childcare increases female labor force participation in Indonesia by 13%. This data further suggests that childcare may also affect how women access information and opportunities.
This matters for workers, as the likelihood of undocumented migration is higher for those who use informal channels to learn about migration opportunities. The risks of undocumented migration are higher than those of formal migration and relatively higher for women. Women are more likely than men to experience emotional and physical abuse from undocumented migration, and like men, they also risk becoming victims of financial exploitation.
This data is a reminder that migration is not gender neutral. Women migrate for different reasons, to different places, in different ways, and face different risks and outcomes from migration than men. Policies that seek to improve migration outcomes must be based on an understanding of these differences, such as simplifying migration procedures and making migration information more easily accessible and targeted.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
Siddharth Mallavarapu on International Asymmetries, Ethnocentrism, and a View on IR from India
How is the rise of the BRICs in the international political and economic system reflected in our understanding of that system? One key insight is that the discipline of International Relations that has emanated from the northern hemisphere is far less 'international' than is widely thought. Scholars from the 'Global South' increasingly raise important challenges to the provincialism of IR theory with a universal pretense. Siddharth Mallavarapu's work has consistently engaged with such questions. In this Talk, Mallavarapu, amongst others, elaborates on IR's ethnocentrism, the multitude of voices in the Global South, and why he rather speaks of a 'voice from India' rather than an 'Indian IR theory'.
Print version of this Talk (pdf)
What is, according to you, the biggest challenge / principal debate in current IR? What is your position or answer to this challenge / in this debate?
One of the things I constantly contend with in my work is to think of ways of how we can widen our notion of the international. IR has been too closely linked to the fortunes of the major powers, and this has been to our detriment, because it has impoverished our sense of international. I think the spirit of what I contend with is best captured by what Ngugi wa Thiong'o in his book Globalectics: Theory and Politics of Knowing concerns himself with, namely '…the organization of literary space and the politics of knowing'. My interest is to grapple with the manner in which the discipline of International Relations in its dominant mainstream idiom orchestrates and administers intellectual space and the implications this carries for the broader politics of knowledge. Simply put, the principal challenge is to confront various species of ethnocentrism – particularly Anglo-American accents of parochialism in the mainstream account of International Relations.
I am also keenly sensitive to some disciplinary biases and prejudices, which I think sometimes take on tacit forms and sometimes more explicit forms, and in which provincial experiences are passed off as universal experiences. The whole question of 'benchmarking' is problematic, in that a benchmark is set by one, and others are expected to measure up to that benchmark. Then there is the question of certain theories, for example the idea that hegemony is desirable from the perspective of international stability – think of the Hegemonic Stability Theory in the 1970s, or the Democratic Peace Theory that assumes that liberal democracy is an unsurpassed political form from the perspective of peace. Then there is human rights advocacy of a particular kind, and the whole idea of the 'Long Peace' applied to the Cold War years. In reality, this was far from a 'long peace' for many countries in the Third World during the same era.
I am also interested right now in the issue of the evolution of IR theory, and was really intrigued by the September 2013 issue of the EuropeanJournal of International Relations, with its focus on 'the End of International Relations Theory': I find this fascinating, because just at a time when there are new players or re-emerging and re-surfacing players in the international system, there is a move to delegitimize IR Theory itself. So I am curious about the conjuncture and the set of sociologies of knowledge that inform particular terms and turns in the discipline.
My response to this challenge is to consciously work towards inserting other voices, traditions and sensibilities in the discipline to problematize its straightforward and simplistic understanding of large chunks of the world. My work is informed by what international relations praxis looks like in other places and how it is locally interpreted in those contexts. There are gaps in mainstream narratives and I am interested in finding ways to create space for a more substantive engagement with other perspectives by broadening the disciplinary context. This is not merely a matter of inclusive elegance but a matter of life and death because poor knowledge as evident from the historical record generates disastrous political judgments that have already resulted in considerable loss of human life, often worst impacting the former colonies.
The global south holds a particular attraction for me in this context, especially given its often problematic representations in mainstream IR discourse. The underlying premise here is that the discipline of IR will stand to be enriched by drawing on a much wider repertoire of human experiences than it currently does. The normative imperative is to nudge us all in the direction of being more circumspect before we pronounce or pass quick and often harsh political assessments about sights, sounds, smells and political ecologies we are unfamiliar with. IR as a discipline needs to reflect the considerable diversity.
My doctoral research on the role of the International Court of Justice advisory opinion rendered in July 1996 on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons provided an opportunity to probe this diversity further. While advancing a case for categorical illegality of nuclear use under all circumstances, Judge Christopher Gregory Weeramantry discusses at length the multicultural bases of international humanitarian law. In doing so, he combines knowledge of world religions, postcolonial histories and canonical international law to frame his erudite opinion, which displays a thoughtful engagement with often neglected or obscured sensibilities.
These examples can be exponentially multiplied. Such a sentiment is most succinctly captured by Chinua Achebe in Home and Exile where he argues that '…my hope for the twenty-first [century] is that it will see the first fruits of the balance of stories among the world's peoples'. It most critically calls for '…the process of 're-storying' peoples who had been knocked silent by the trauma of all kinds of dispossession'. I would treat this as an important charter or intellectual map for anybody embarking on the study of International Relations today. I would also like to add that this storytelling would inevitably encounter the categories and many avatars of race, class, gender and nationality crisscrossing and intersecting in all sorts of possible combinations generating a whole host of political outcomes as well.
The skewed politics of knowledge is most evident when it comes to theory with a big 'T' in particular. Most theories of International Relations emanate from the Anglo-American metropole and little from elsewhere. This is not because of an absence of theoretical reflection in other milieus but due rather to a not so accidental privileging of some parts of experiential reality over others. IR has been too caught up with the major powers. I could think of conscious efforts to theorize both in the past and in the present elements of reality hidden from conventional vantage points. One recent illustration of social and political theorizing from the context I am more familiar with is an account by Gopal Guru and Sundar Sarukkai titled The Cracked Mirror: An Indian Debate on Experience and Theory. There are on-going theoretical engagements in Africa, the Arab world, Asia and South America reflecting an intellectual ferment both within and outside of these societies. International Relations as a discipline has to find ways of explicitly engaging these texts and relating it to prevailing currents in world politics rather than carry on an elaborate pretence of their non-existence. I am more troubled by claims of an 'end of International Relations theory' just at a moment when the world is opening up to new political possibilities stemming from the projected growth in international influence of parts of Asia, Africa, the Arab world and South America. IR has to move beyond its obsession of focusing on the major powers and seriously democratize its content. The terms 'global' or 'international' cannot be a monopoly or even an oligopoly. Such a view has severely impoverished our understanding of the contemporary world.
How did you arrive at where you currently are in IR?
I cannot really claim that this was a neatly planned trajectory. I stumbled upon the discipline by chance not design. My initial curiosity about the world of social cognition emerged from a slice of my medical history. When I was at school in my early teens, I developed a condition referred to as Leucoderma or Vitiligo which involved skin depigmentation. I enjoyed writing from an early stage and recall recording my observations of the world around me in a piece titled Etiology Unknown borrowing language from the doctor's diagnosis. I recall an urgency to comprehend and make sense of what I perceived then as a fast changing world where old certitudes were dissolving on a daily basis. I felt an outsider at some remove from my earlier self and it gave me on retrospect a distinct vantage point to witness the world around me. It was impacting who I thought I was and thereby compelled me to confront issues of identity – individual and social. An extremely supportive family made all the difference during these years.
The turmoil and confusion in those years led me to develop a deeper interest in understanding more loosely why people reacted in particular sorts of ways to what was in medical terms merely a cosmetic change. It also led me to informally forge community whenever I saw anybody else experiencing similar states of being. I also internalized one of the first ingredients of good social science – the capacity to be empathetic and put ourselves in others shoes. I learnt that the discipline of Sociology among the available choices in my milieu came closest to allowing me to pursue these concerns more systematically further. I applied to a Sociology master's programme after my undergraduate years at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, but I had also applied simultaneously to the International Relations programme since in my understanding it after all concerned the wider world – an extension of scale but similar I imagined in terms of the canvas of concerns. The numbers in India are large, the competition is stiff: I made it to the IR programme but did not make it to the Sociology programme.
Having got there, I had some outstanding influences, and I soon realized that one could also think about issues of identity (then cast by me in terms of simple binaries – home and the external world, the relationship of inside and outside, victors and the vanquished) in the discipline of IR. I decided to stick the course and delve into these questions more deeply while keeping up with a broader interest in the social sciences.
I could list a few influences that were critical at various stages of my academic biography: at high school, an economics teacher S. Venkata Lakshmi was very encouraging and positive and confirmed my intuitive sense that I would enjoy the social sciences. Subsequently at college I had in Father Ambrose Pinto a fine teacher of Political Science. He would take us on small field excursions to observe first hand issues such as caste conflicts in a neighbouring village, and all that helped me develop a sharper sense of the political which moved away from the textbook and was strongly anchored in the local context.
At the graduate level of study, Kanti Bajpai who later also became my mentor and advisor in the doctoral programme exercised an enormous influence as a role model. I was convinced that a life of the mind is worth aspiring and working towards once I came into contact with him in the classroom. He also exposed me to all the basic building blocks of an academic life – reading, writing, researching, teaching and publishing, demonstrating at all times both patience and unparalleled generosity. We have collaborated on two edited volumes on International Relations in India and I continue to greatly value an enduring friendship.
For over a decade, I have also had the good fortune of coming into contact with B.S. Chimni who is an exemplary scholar in the Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) tradition. It has been a great joy bouncing off ideas and discussing at length various facets of International Relations, International Law and Political Theory together over the years. I have learnt much from this rich and continued association. In 2012 we worked jointly on an edited book titled International Relations: Perspectives for the Global South.
I have also learnt (and continue to do so) from my students both at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and at the South Asian University (SAU). At JNU, I made my beginnings and continue to take some pride in being intellectually home spun at one of the foundational and premier crucibles of International Relations scholarship in India. I have also thoroughly enjoyed my interactions over the years with the students drawn from diverse backgrounds. At SAU, I have in the space of a short period been exposed to some fine students from across the South Asian region. I have often been impressed by their understanding of politics and on occasion have marvelled at their demonstration of a maturity beyond their years. There is much I learn from them particularly from their insider narratives of the unique political experiences and trajectories of their specific countries.
Himadeep Muppidi has also been a remarkable influence in terms of clarifying my thinking about the workings of the global IR episteme. His receptivity to hitherto neglected intellectual inheritances from outside the mainstream and most evidently his capacity to write with soul, passion and character while retaining a deep suspicion of the 'objectivity' fetish in the social sciences has alerted me to a whole new metaphysics and aesthetic of interpreting IR. The thread that runs through all these interests and influences is firstly the issue of context, and secondly the question of agency –what it meant to be marginal in some sense, how could one think about theorizing questions relating to dispossession, relating to a certain degree of marginality– and also the broader issue of the politics of knowledge itself: of how certain attitudes and concepts seem to obscure or deface certain conditions, which seem to be quite prevalent.
I have also found excellent academic conversationalists with sometimes differing perspectives who help sharpen my arguments considerably. I would like to make special mention of Thomas Fues and the fascinating global governance school that he offers intellectual stewardship to in Bonn. In the years to come, I look forward to further intellectual collaborations with scholars from Brazil and South Africa and other parts of South America and Africa as well as the Arab world.
What would a student need to become a specialist in IR or understand the world in a global way?
The key without a doubt is curiosity. I do my best to feed that curiosity as a teacher. I also think Gerardo Munck and Richard Snyder's counsel and interviews in their book, Passion, Craft and Method in Comparative Politics are a useful resource for students wanting to study International Relations. I also feel strongly that classics need to be read and engaged with, by bringing them into play in our contemporary dilemmas. I find that many of the questions we ask today are not necessarily entirely new questions: there is a history to them and there has been some careful thought given to them in the past, so it is important to partake of this inheritance.
Then there is language: it is vital for students to break out of one particular region or one particular set of concerns which flow from a limited context, and in this way to become willing to engage with other contexts. In this sense, language learning potentially opens up other worlds. I also believe that some exposure to quantitative methods is important: you need to be able to both contextualize and interpret data with some degree of confidence and not overlook them when approaching texts. Not everybody may choose it but we need to make the distinction between The Signal and the Noise as Nate Silverreminds us. I have found Marc Trachtenberg's The Craft of International History (chapter 1 in PDF here) a very useful text in providing some very practical advice in fine tuning our research designs to weave the past into our present. D.D. Kosambi's essay on 'combining methods' (PDF here) still provides important clues to thinking creatively about method.
I also think it is important for students to avoid the temptations of insularity and also pose questions in a fashion that allows them to explore the workings of these questions in diverse settings. They should be open to a diversity of methods from different disciplines such as ethnography, and develop a deeper historical sensitivity, all these are crucial to shaping up as a good scholar.
In sum, the importance of classics, fieldwork and language acquisition cannot be emphasized sufficiently. Classics bring us back to refined thought concerning enduring questions, language opens up other worlds, and field work compels one to at least temporarily inhabit the trenches, dirty your hands and acquire an earthy sense of the issues at hand.
Given the importance you attach to the learning of language, among other things, and the linguistic diversity that characterises India, do you often perceive language to be a barrier to understanding?
I think language works in two ways. On the one hand, each language has a specific manner of framing issues and a specific set of sensibilities associated with it which in some respects is quite unique. However, languages also lend themselves to different cross-cultural interpretations and adaptations. Kristina S. Ten in an evocative piece titled 'Vehicles for Story: Chinua Achebe and Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o on Defining African Literature,Preserving Culture and Self' maps some key lines of an enduring debate. Thiong'o has a particularly strong position on this question of language: he says he no longer wants to write in the English language, but instead in his native Gikuyu, as well as Swahili. He argues that language has to do with memory, has to do with what he calls a soul, and he maintains that language hierarchies are very real and that we must contribute to enriching our own pools of language to begin with, if we are to contribute to a much wider, global repertoire of languages. In contrast, Chinua Achebe whom I mentioned earlier, very often wrote in English and held the position that it was important to be accessible to more people and to reach diverse audiences who would not necessarily be from his home country. He said it was possible to use a language like English and permeate it with local texture, wisdom and pulse – something he has exemplified in his own work. I consider his writings a testimony to how well that can be done.
So there is a bit of a divide in terms of how one can look at this question of language, but teaching in India I know that there are students who may be very bright but who are constrained by the fact that they have not had the same access to English schools, and therefore are restricted to the vernacular. These students may have some very good ideas, but they feel disadvantaged by the fact that their command of the English language is not sufficient to guarantee close attention to what they wish to say. Some work hard to overcome these challenges and meet with considerable success. While I think it is wonderful to learn another language, it does not need to entail a diffidence or neglect of one's own native language or any other vernacular language. My impression is that if unimaginatively pursued something is lost in the process and students end up feeling diffident and apologetic about their native language which is entirely undesirable. I believe therefore that while one should enthusiastically embrace new languages, the challenge is to accomplish this without unconsciously obscuring one's native tongue. Having said that, all of us in India are keen to go to English language schools. Vernacular languages have often lost out in the process. So there is something to be said about this concern about language. We have to tread carefully and remain attentive to how language hierarchies are positioned and deployed for advancing particular species of knowledge claims.
From the language issues flow conceptual questions: Asia is a Western construct, and South Asia an extension of that. You reluctantly use this term, South Asia, in what you call shorthand, and similarly terms "nation" and "state". How can we break away from these concepts if we don't have a new vocabulary?
This really flows from the fact that IR is still very much an ethnocentric construct. We are also suggesting in the same breath that there is a particular form in which most concepts and categories tend to be employed. I think IR language is imbued at least partly with the vocabulary of the hegemon or of the dominant powers, so that it shares with the area studies' legacy the political connotations that are still very much with us. One way that I try to break away from this when I introduce students to these concepts and categories is by focusing on the lineage and the broader intellectual history and etymology of concepts which come into play in IR. Students are in any case acutely aware of the fact that there is a strong area studies tradition which has mapped the world in a particular way which was not an innocent discursive formation by any stretch of imagination. They also recognize that this is not the only framing possible. The challenge for us is of course to introduce new concepts and categories. I noticed for instance that South Asia has become 'Southern Asia' for some strategic commentators (StevenA. Hoffmann among others) because 'Southern Asia' also includes China. However, when it is done from the perspective of strategy there are other interests intertwined such as specific geopolitical assessments.
What I try to do, rather, is to draw on the deeper histories within the region itself, in order to arrive at concepts and conceptions which are more germane to our context. I don't think I've succeeded in this project as yet, but one of the reasons why I think it's important to historicise these elements and even categories is to open up the possibility of thinking about different imaginaries and along with that different categories. I don't want to call it an alternative vocabulary, because I think that some sensibilities have been given short shrift in history, and some provincial experiences have more successfully masqueraded as universal experiences. Therefore, part of the challenge is to call that bluff, while another part of the challenge is to reconstruct and offer fresh perspectives. These may even be questions about traditional issues such as order or justice, questions of political authority, political rule or legitimacy. These are questions which are of concern to all societies though individual responses may not echo the language and slants of conventional IR theory. However, they may throw up some sophisticated formulations on these very issues. A part of the challenge for the IR scholar, then, is to recover and bring these ideas into the sinews of the mainstream IR academia.
It is equally important to avoid any sort of nativism, or to suggest that this is necessarily 'the best' approach, but to widen the inventory before moving on to stimulating a real conversation between divergent conceptions. We must avoid falling into the trap of what Ulrich Beck among others has referred to as 'methodological nationalism'. I am by no means suggesting that there is 'an Indian theory' of IR, but what I am curious about is how the world is viewed from this particular location. That is quite different from suggesting that there is a national project or a national school of IR. I think that distinction needs to be made more subtly and needs to come through more clearly, but one of the projects I am currently involved in is the chronicling of a disciplinary history of IR in India and what that tells us about Indians and their readings of the world outside their home. In that process, I ask what the key issues that animated particularly an earlier generation of scholars - how did they present these ideas and why did they avoid using certain forms of presentation and framing? What were some of the conspicuous presences and nonappearances in their work? Exploring these sorts of issues will lead us forward by, firstly, bringing to bear all these pieces of work which I feel have been ignored or have not received their due, and secondly, by showing that there is a fair amount of diversity of thinking even in the earlier generations of IR scholarship. The intent is to avoid a monolithic conception of IR that emerges from India. I will have to make this point much more clearly and emphatically in the future, and hope that my focus on disciplinary history will contribute to some critical ground clearing. Similar inventories of IR scholarship need to be assembled in different locations from Africa, South America, other parts of Asia and the Arab world.
Many of these projects then also link up to very practical questions. One of the issues that is of interest to me in this context is that of South-South cooperation, such as for instance the IBSA Dialogue Forum, or the grouping known as BRICS, or the broader forum of the G-20. There is evidence that the traditional structures and ways of doing things are increasingly suspect and being viewed with suspicion by some actors within the international system. It is therefore more important now to reopen some of these questions and to think afresh about such things as institutional design: what does it mean to be talking about "democratising international relations"? How can we think of more inclusive and legitimate institutions? How can we think about ways in which we can cooperate for the provision of global public goods, but in a manner which is historically more legitimate and fair? How can we address previous asymmetries that are not necessarily going to just disappear? How do we deal with old power structures and their residual influences in terms of the Westphalian state system? What legacy has been enshrined for instance in the Bretton Woods institutions and what has that legacy meant? What happened to non-alignment? Vijay Prashad chronicles vividly the promise and unfulfilled promise of the non-aligned movement in his fascinating account titled The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World. How the past plays out in terms of contemporary global governance questions and arrangements is fundamental to my research interests. I have recently intervened on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine and its practice. I have been rather critical arguing that it cannot be disassociated from a longer history of interventionism by the major powers in the global south however benign its dressing. A thread that runs through my work is to demonstrate how historical asymmetry continues to manifest in terms of how the contemporary international system is structured. And I ask if we are to arrive at a more legitimate, inclusive and effective international system, then what are the mechanisms and steps which we need to work towards?
What do you imagine that process might look like? Do we need to return to a 'world of villages' (the 1300s) before we can reinvent IR, the national and the global? Do we need micro histories before we can reassemble a bigger history or is a subtle shift possible?
There are two levels on which this can happen: on one level the changes that seem to work are incremental changes and not lock-stock-and-barrel fundamental changes. In terms of scale, different scholars do different things. Some scholars are interested in micro histories, others are interested in macro histories and asking the big questions.
I imagine both these projects are important and there should be more scholars from the global south as well who ask the big macro questions. What has happened for too long is that we have relegated this responsibility to the traditional post Second World War major powers and they have treated it as natural to offer us macro-historical narratives and pictures. I think scholars from the global south need now to attend to both tasks: to write good micro histories as well as reframe the larger questions of macro history. I would add that normative concerns such as the content and feasibility of global justice needs also to be an integral part of contemporary international relations scholarship. For instance, it would be fair to ask that in a world of plenty, why do so many people go hungry?
So if you were to ask me about my dreams and my hopes, I still think that the 1955 Bandung Conference and subsequent nonalignment visions remain unfinished business. I hope that within the span of the current generation there is greater egalitarianism accomplished in the international system and ultimately a balance not just in terms of what Achebe called the stories of the world, but also in terms of actual institutional designs and political outcomes. This should translate into much better provision of various public goods to global citizenry with special attention to those who have been historically disadvantaged. For assorted reasons there have been deep asymmetries within the international system which have persisted and resulted in diminishing the life chances and collective self-esteem of various peoples in the global south. There is an urgent need to both acknowledge and remedy the situation in the world we live in.
In your experience, what is the role of the IR scholar in India in relation to the foreign policy establishment and the policy makers?
It is quite hard to find traction of one's ideas in terms of any influence of scholars or groups of scholars on the social or political establishment. Overall I would say that academia has for a long time not been taken seriously by the foreign policy establishment, and that has more to do with the institutional structure where there is a pecking order and the bureaucracy sees itself as being better informed. Even in academic conference settings, one could periodically expect a practitioner of foreign policy to argue that they know best having been present at a particular negotiation or at the outbreak, duration and conclusion of any recent episode in diplomatic history. This does not in reality translate into the best knowledge because there is the possibility that besides the immediate detail, the absence of a larger historical context or even unaccounted variables in terms of the contemporary political forces at work during that moment could be blind spots in the narrative. It is fair to say therefore that the influence of academia on the Indian foreign policy establishment by and large has tended to be minimal. However, one could make the argument today that there are some early stirrings of changes in the offing.
Quite evidently, the Indian Foreign Service is far too miniscule for a country of India's size and desired influence in the international system. There is a perceived need from within the foreign policy establishment to draw on expertise from elsewhere and on occasion they do turn to the academia to invite counsel on specific issues. From the perspective of the IR academic, it is perhaps equally important to be not too close to the corridors of power as it could alter the incentive structure to the detriment of independent opinion making for securing short or long term political patronage.
Siddharth Mallavarapu is currently Associate Professor and Chairperson at the Department of International Relations at the South Asian University in New Delhi. He is on deputation from the School of International Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University. He completed his doctoral thesis on the politics of norm creation in the context of an Advisory Opinion rendered by the International Court of Justice in 1996 on nuclear weapon threat or use. This culminated in his first book, Banning the Bomb: The Politics of Norm Creation. His principal areas of academic focus include international relations theory, intellectual histories of the global south, disciplinary histories of IR, global governance debates and more recently the implications of recent developments in the field of cognition on the social sciences. Mallavarapu retains a special interest in issues related to the politics of knowledge and examines the claims advanced in the discipline of International Relations through this perspective. His immediate teaching commitments include a graduate course on 'Cognition and World Politics' and a doctoral level course on 'Advanced Research Methods'. He has co-edited (with Kanti Bajpai) two books on recent Indian contributions to International Relations theory. In 2012 along with B.S. Chimni, he co-edited International Relations: Perspectives for the Global South.
Read Mallavarapu's Dissent of Judge Weeramantry (2006 book chapter) here (pdf) Read Mallavarapu's Indian Thinking in International Relations here (pdf) Read Mallavarapu's Because of America here (pdf) Read Mallavarapu's Nuclear Detonations: Contemplating Catastrophe here (pdf)
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
How long can an economy survive without allowing international flights in and out? Since the COVID-19 outbreak, the world has all but shut its doors. If, before the pandemic, more than 100,000 flights were taking off on any given day worldwide, the number of scheduled flights has been down by over 60 percent over the past few months. This has helped contain the coronavirus, but it has also led to enormous economic losses, especially for the aviation industry and the tourism sector. The social pressure has also mounted for separated families and friends that are eager to see each other again.
Several countries, particularly in East Asia and Europe, are in the process of reopening their economies after imposing nationwide lockdowns. The policy challenge is how to reopen, especially across borders, while keeping people safe. The health situation can still change in a matter of days, as demonstrated recently by the reemergence of COVID-19 infections, for example, in China and Germany.
The decision to reopen an international flight could be influenced by three main factors. First, it should involve countries that are mutually considering easing mobility restrictions – it doesn't make sense to open a flight with a country that is still in strict lockdown. Second, greater consideration should be on safe areas or locations – to minimize the risk of coronavirus propagation. Third, there should be more incentive to open routes that will bring more visitors and economic gains. The challenge for policy makers is not only to combine these three factors in their decisions but also to monitor them over time. The uncertainty around the pandemic means that a decision could appear justified at one point in time but wrong or dangerous a few weeks later.
We propose a new dashboard that combines three sources of big data in almost real time. First, the stringency index measured by the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT), which provides a comparison of how social distancing and mobility restrictions have evolved per country over time. Second, the number of reported COVID-19 infections over the past five days that captures the health situation in each country (source: Johns Hopkins University). Third, the number of flights between destinations (as tracked from the aviationstack API), which should give us an idea of their economic importance.
While our dashboard can be used for any country, we will apply it to Vietnam – a country well advanced in its fight against COVID-19. In recent weeks, the government has lifted almost all domestic preventive measures and reopened most domestic flights (Figure 1). As recently mentioned by the prime minister, the authorities are also considering reopening a number of international routes even if the current number has remained extremely limited.
Our dashboard for Vietnam is available on daily and weekly basis. These links both are dynamic and inter-active, in the sense that they are being automatically updated and users can slide across their periods of interest. They show the evolution of our three factors since end December 2019.
Let us illustrate how our dashboard can help Vietnamese policy makers in two ways. First, it establishes a ranking of countries with respect of the three criteria defined above at a specific point in time. For example, Figure 2 (which is a snapshot of our dashboard) shows the results we obtained on April 25, where the x-axis denotes the number of international flights originating from Vietnam in January and February 2020 prior to the lockdown, while the y-axis is the latest policy stringency. The size of the bubble denotes the number of newly reported cases in the past five days.
At this time, the prime candidates for reopening of international flights would have been the Republic of Korea and China, as these two destinations are important economically for Vietnam (as captured by the number of flights). These two countries were also reporting a relatively low number of COVID-19 cases (in the last five days prior to April 25) and had lifted many of their mobility restrictions. Opening to Hong Kong SAR and Cambodia could also have been considered, as these two destinations appeared relatively COVID-19 safe and mobile. Reopening with Thailand would have been justified in terms of number of flights and health safety, but not in terms of the stringency index as the country was still in partial lockdown.
Our dashboard also allows policy makers to monitor the situation over time. If we compare our results above with those obtained on June 25 (Figure 3), Korea remains a prime candidate for reopening, but not China. This is because China's number of reported COVID-19 cases has increased as well as its mobility restrictions – reflecting the recent outbreak in Beijing and the associated measures adopted by the authorities. By contrast, Thailand has risen in our ranking, as it continues to be relatively COVID-19 safe (only 12 reported cases in the five prior days) and has reduced its mobility restrictions. It is worth noting that Japan has also become an option, not only because of its economic importance for Vietnam but also because of its decrease in COVID-19 cases and mobility restrictions in recent weeks.
Our big data dashboard offers information that is useful for policy makers as they consider reopening their economies gradually to the rest of the world. It allows them to weigh the respective importance of safety, financial gains, and mobility not only in their own country but also in the countries they might reconnect with. However, our methodology should be viewed as indicative, because the quality of the data on COVID-19 is strongly influenced by countries' individual testing capacity. It is also only a first step, as the reopening of international flights should be accompanied by supporting measures, including pre-screening at departure and various surveillance and response measures to quickly address any potential vulnerabilities. Good digital data governance and sharing arrangements will clearly be critical to ensure that timely data is in place for decision making.
Opening economies during COVID-19 is obviously a quantitative but also qualitative challenge. While data should be an important element of decision making, the choice should ultimately reflect how a society can best save lives and bring economic gains. We hope that our proposed methodology demonstrates how big data analysis can contribute in responding to this critical challenge.
This work was supported through the Australia-World Bank Group Strategic Partnership - Phase 2 (ABP2).
READ MORE:
Vietnam: a bright star in the COVID-19 dark sky Containing the coronavirus (COVID-19): Lessons from Vietnam Follow us on Facebook.
Topics
Transport
Countries
Viet Nam
Regions
East Asia and Pacific
Series
#DataViz COVID-19 (coronavirus) Open Data
Authors
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kai-kaiser-9684221/
Kai Kaiser Senior Economist, World Bank More Blogs By Kai
https://www.linkedin.com/in/parvathykrishnank/
Parvathy Krishnan Data Science Consultant More Blogs By Parvathy
Jacques Morisset Lead Economist and Program Leader, World Bank More Blogs By Jacques
2
Jen JungEun Oh
July 24, 2020
Kai, Parvathy and Jacques, congrats on this insightful piece with powerful data and great visual. Well done pulling these data together and making them usable for decision making. I wonder if you could try to measure economic benefits and risks associated with opening a particular international route at a given time, based on this information.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
Health epidemics have a multilayered, long-standing impact on society as a whole, and an inordinate impact on women. Particularly in a country like Iraq where progress on women's rights and issues has been slowly gaining more traction in recent years, the coronavirus threatens to halt progress on these key issues and give lower priorities to women's concerns that are still vital during such a time of crisis. While more men than women seem to get infected with the new coronavirus globally--there is no gender-disaggregated data for Iraq--, the social impact of the virus in countries that already have been through the worst of the pandemic can serve as important indicators for Iraq.
The social impact of the coronavirus has had an uneven impact on women more than men in the first countries hit by the coronavirus in East Asia. Notably, in South Korea, women have taken on a larger burden than men in taking care of children forced to stay at home due to school closures, as societal norms more often place the burden for childcare on women. Not only does this put greater pressure on women who are in many cases already the primary caretakers at home, but it makes them more likely to lose their jobs as they are forced to divert more time to childcare. These societal norms also mean women are more likely to be exposed by the virus, as they are stuck in a caretaker role for sick family members and makeup over 70% of the healthcare sector according to a World Health Organization Report.
Women forced to stay home and work less in order to dedicate more time to caretaking also means that women are more likely to suffer from the economic impact of the virus, whether that means job loss or wage reductions. This means that even after the virus has effectively contained, women are more likely to suffer from the economic fallout than men long after the virus is gone.
In addition, in China, rights activists reported an increase in domestic violence cases, as lockdowns and economic pressure have increased tensions in many households. Particularly at the epicenter of the virus in Wuhan, China, activists reported a threefold increase in domestic abuse cases. The quarantine measures in place, while cases were at their height in China, made it difficult for activists to provide aid, and diverted police attention away from assisting women who suffered from domestic abuse. This disruption of support networks makes it more difficult for women to report domestic abuse cases and to get away from their abusers.
Social, cultural, and political barriers to women's participation in Iraq might lead to disproportionate effects based on gender. First, there have already been voices raising concerns that some families might not allow women who had tested positive for the virus to be quarantined, as more traditional culture is against women to remain unaccompanied. Not only would this present a serious threat to the health of individual women, but such refusals by conservative families to follow the recommendations of medical personnel may contribute to undermining the government measures to contain the virus. Second, women's representation in government is already limited in Iraq, and with a limited voice in the decision-making chambers of government, their gender-sensitive concerns will likely be less of a priority to Iraq's policy makers. And finally, Iraq's economic situation that was in decline even before the outbreak might further impact the poor economic opportunities already facing women in Iraq.
Beyond the loss of life and social and economic impacts on men and women in Iraq, the crisis is also an opportunity for the government and civil society to increase engagement with the most vulnerable groups, including women, and bring them in as a major element of preventing the spread of the virus. Societal norms placing women into the primary caretaker role in homes means they will have a greater awareness of how the virus is spreading, so they can report more accurate information. In addition, polling conducted in several countries suggests that women are more concerned with the spread of the virus than men. The government could take advantage of this trend by bringing women into the process of raising awareness and concern about the virus among Iraq's population.
Given the unequal impact, the social impact of coronavirus will have on women, the Iraqi government and civil society partners should prioritize making sure issues that impact women are not sidelined during the crisis. Support networks should strengthen their outreach efforts and make resources for women's health and domestic abuse support more accessible, ideally with government backing. It is especially important that the government prioritize getting out accurate information on the coronavirus and work with the support of tribal and religious leaders to encourage families to follow quarantine procedures for women who test positive for the virus.
Women participating in NDI's National Reconciliation Program prepare food baskets in Kirkuk to help their community cope with movement restrictions taken in response to COVID-19
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
Nurses in Sri Lanka attend to their work. Photo: Dominic Sansoni/World Bank
The COVID-19 pandemic is prompting a fresh look at options to ensure reliable power for health facilities , including the Vavuniya General Hospital in Sri Lanka's Northern Province. In line with an overall push to boost the share of renewables, the government of Sri Lanka is pursuing new power solutions for Vavuniya and about 20 other hospitals across the nation.
The World Bank is assisting as part of a multi-sectoral pandemic response in Sri Lanka. Similar initiatives are underway in other countries around the world, including Afghanistan, Madagascar, and Nigeria, to name a few.
Parts of a solution
Distributed photovoltaics (DPV), installed on rooftops or open spaces near buildings, are proliferating as a low-cost option for emergency power supplies. Many developing countries already use DPV as a long-term primary or secondary power source for health care facilities in rural and urban settings. While operating costs are minimal, average investment costs are dramatically lower today than even a few years ago, making DPV more economically attractive. When coupled with batteries, which are also becoming cheaper, DPV systems can contribute to reliable power around the clock.
With these solutions, diesel generators can become more of a last resort, instead of being the main or only source of essential back-up power when the grid is unavailable. Less use of diesel generators helps avoid the high cost of fuel, vulnerability to shortages, and toxic emissions.
Diverse technology options are available for distributed renewables. They range from individual components to pre-packaged "box" solutions which combine DPV, batteries and generators of varying sizes, including up to mini-grid level for larger sites. Under the auspices of the Energy Storage Partnership facilitated by the World Bank, a survey of suppliers has found that significant inventory is available despite logistics disruptions.
Electrical devices are also increasingly available in more energy efficient models, which can help avoid oversized power systems in new health care units. Correct system sizing is crucial where financial resources are limited, but many variables need to be considered.
For example, the electricity needs of intensive care units (ICU) differ greatly depending on how many beds are occupied: temporary ICU wards need significant power, but only for a limited time period. Another key factor to consider is that electricity demand from certain medical services may drop while stay-at-home measures are in force. For instance, some hospitals are deferring elective surgeries during the crisis. System sizing strategies need to examine such factors when addressing the health care sector's power needs in response to the pandemic.
Bringing the parts together
Given all the options, what tools are available to design power solutions for hospitals without full grid electricity? One resource is the HOMER Powering Health Tool, a free online model to help simplify the design process for distributed generation systems for health care facilities. Standing for Hybrid Optimization Model for Multiple Energy Resources, HOMER is a leading resource for mini-grid analyses.
Originally commissioned for USAID's Powering Health program, the HOMER Powering Health Tool has recently been updated to reflect typical COVID-19 response needs with support from the World Bank's Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP). Users enter the electrical needs manually or select default values for pre-listed devices from one of four health facility tiers as a starting point. The tiers include, for example, a small rural dispensary that would typically screen and refer serious cases to larger facilities such as a district hospital. Based on user inputs, the tool calculates least-cost combinations of batteries, PV, and diesel generators sets – including as back-up to grid electricity if this is available for some hours each day.
The tool runs entirely online and can be used an unlimited number of times with no need to sign in or to download a software. It's kept simple for non-specialists to use without requiring special training. This comes with limitations, of course. For certain advanced needs, other products are available, such as the full, licensed software of HOMER Energy by UL or the free System Advisor Model (SAM) of the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The latter is especially useful for systems that may feed DPV power to the grid when it is not needed on site. In Sri Lanka, the World Bank is applying these tools to optimize solutions to strengthen power for Vavuniya and other hospitals.
From one to many
With a standard lifetime of 20 years, DPV systems can supply clean energy to the national grid. They can also become the backbone of community mini-grids. The value of both options goes well beyond the pandemic. DPV can help not only the consumers who host the systems but also a power system that it feeds. DPV can reduce grid congestion and energy losses for utilities. It can also displace more costly generation from wholesale sources while promoting resilience.
Sri Lanka has already been promoting DPV such as through its Rooftop Solar Power Generation Project, in partnership with the Asian Development Bank. Nationwide, rooftop installations are on track to reach a total of 200 megawatts capacity by the end of 2020, equivalent to around 7 percent of system peak demand. Northern Province alone has added over 3 megawatts since 2017, including 17 projects in Vavuniya for businesses and households. Consumers with DPV can choose to feed some or all the power generated into the national grid through the utility providers. In all cases, the DPV significantly reduces consumers' bills while providing clean energy to the system at a lower cost than fuel-based generation for grid.
Sri Lanka's initiative shows that solutions to the current crisis can also address longer-term challenges. With a strategic approach, health care facilities can be well-positioned to combat COVID-19 while preparing for the "new normal."
Subscribe here to stay up to date with the latest Energy blogs.
Topics
Energy Health
Regions
South Asia
Series
COVID-19 (coronavirus)
Authors
https://www.linkedin.com/in/alandlee/
Alan David Lee Senior Energy and Climate Change Specialist More Blogs By Alan
https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrea-arricale/
Andrea Arricale Energy Access Consultant More Blogs By Andrea
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
"Wenn über das Grundsätzliche keine Einigkeit besteht, ist es sinnlos, miteinander Pläne zu schmieden." – Konfuzius (551-479 v.Chr.).Der grundsätzliche universelle Geltungsanspruch der Menschenrechte besagt, dass die Menschenrechte jedem Menschen auf der Welt zustehen. Die Allgemeine Erklärung der Menschenrechte aus dem Jahr 1948 drückt das folgendermaßen aus: "Jeder hat Anspruch auf alle in dieser Erklärung verkündeten Rechte und Freiheiten, ohne irgendeinen Unterschied, etwa nach Rasse, Hautfarbe, Geschlecht, Sprache, Religion, politischer oder sonstiger Anschauung, nationaler oder sozialer Herkunft, Vermögen, Geburt oder sonstigem Stand […]" (UN-Vollversammlung 1948, Artikel 2). Jedoch ist dieser universelle Geltungsanspruch der Menschenrechte in der Realität häufig noch ein Ideal. Mit der Deklaration von Bangkok, die einige südostasiatische Staaten Anfang der 1990er Jahre unterzeichneten, wurde er sogar explizit in Frage gestellt. Was ist die Sichtweise dieser südostasiatischen Staaten auf die Universalität der Menschenrechte und wie begründen sie diese? Wie könnten Perspektiven für einen interkulturellen Menschenrechtsdialog aussehen? In diesem Beitrag werden die Menschenrechte durch eine Definition und einen Abschnitt zur Geschichte kurz vorgestellt. Anschließend wird die Debatte um Universalität und (Kultur-)Relativismus erläutert, welche überleitet zur "asiatischen Perspektive" auf die Menschenrechte und zu den "asiatischen Werten". Abschließend werden die Kritik und Perspektiven für einen interkulturellen Dialog aufgegriffen.Menschenrechte – eine Definition
Zerstörung, Elend, menschliches Leid und der Völkermord an den europäischen Juden führten in "dramatischer Weise die Notwendigkeit eines wirksamen Schutzes grundlegender Menschenrechte durch verbindliche internationale Normen und kollektive Mechanismen" vor Augen (Gareis/Varwick 2014, S. 179).
Die Idee, dass jedem Menschen, "unabhängig seines Geschlechts, Alters, seiner Religion oder seiner ethnischen, nationalen, regionalen oder sozialen Herkunft, angeborene und unveräußerliche Rechte zu eigen sind, die sich aus seinem Menschsein ableiten", verfestigte sich und führte am 10. Dezember 1948 zur Allgemeinen Erklärung der Menschenrechte (Gareis/Varwick 2014, S. 179).
Erstmals wurde in einem internationalen Dokument festgehalten, dass jedem Menschen wegen "grundlegender Aspekte der menschlichen Person" grundlegende Rechte zugesprochen werden. Diese Rechte sind unveräußerlich und vorstaatlich, was bedeutet, dass der Staat sie nicht vergeben kann, denn jeder Mensch hat sie aufgrund der "biologischen Zugehörigkeit zur menschlichen Gattung" inne (Human Rights 2018). Dem Staat obliegt es, diese Rechte zu schützen.
Menschenrechte besitzen demnach vier Merkmale: Sie sind universell (alle Menschen sind Träger dieser Rechte), egalitär (eine ungleiche Verteilung dieser Rechte ist ausgeschlossen), individuell (der Träger der Menschenrechte ist ein individueller Mensch, keine Gruppe) und kategorial (wer der menschlichen Gattung angehört, besitzt sie automatisch) (vgl. Lohmann 2010, S. 36).
Die Erklärung der Menschenrechte aus dem Jahr 1948 ist keine rechtlich bindende Resolution. Doch auch wenn sie rechtlich nicht bindend ist, hat sie "moralische Wichtigkeit bekommen" (Human Rights 2012). Sie wird dem Gewohnheitsrecht zugeordnet, was bedeutet, dass sie sowohl allgemein anerkannt als auch angewendet und deswegen als verbindlich angesehen wird (vgl.: Human Rights 2012). Sie ist das "weltweit am meisten verbreitete und am meisten übersetzte internationale Dokument" (Gareis/Varwick 2014, S. 179) und dient als Grundlage für zahlreiche Abkommen (vgl. Maier 1997, S. 39).
Juristisch können die Menschenrechte wie folgt definiert werden: "Internationale Menschenrechte sind die durch das internationale Recht garantierten Rechtsansprüche von Personen gegen den Staat oder staatsähnliche Gebilde, die dem Schutz grundlegender Aspekte der menschlichen Person und ihrer Würde in Friedenszeiten und im Krieg dienen" (Human Rights 2012).
Seit 1948 haben sich die Menschenrechte weiterentwickelt, und es hat sich etabliert, von den Menschenrechten in drei Generationen zu sprechen. Zur ersten Generation gehören "die klassischen bürgerlichen und politischen Freiheits- und Beteiligungsrechte" wie das Recht auf Leben, Freiheit und Sicherheit oder das Verbot von Folter (Krennerich 2009). Die zweite Generation der Menschenrechte umfasst wirtschaftliche, soziale und kulturelle Menschenrechte, so beispielsweise das Recht auf Bildung, Teilhabe, aber auch auf Freizeit und Erholung. Die dritte Generation der Menschenrechte "bezeichnen allgemeine, noch kaum in Vertragswerken konkretisierte Rechte wie etwa das Recht auf Entwicklung, Frieden oder saubere Umwelt" (Krennerich 2009). Alle drei Generationen "sollten gleichberechtigt nebeneinander bestehen" (Barthel, zitiert nach Hamm 1999, S. 23).
Der Gedanke der angeborenen Rechte, die ein Mensch qua Menschsein besitzt, ist jedoch älter als die Erklärung der Menschenrechte aus dem Jahr 1948 und die Vereinten Nationen selbst.
Eine kurze Geschichte der Menschenrechte
Der Ursprung der Menschenrechte geht auf das antike Griechenland zurück. Der "revolutionäre Gedanke der Stoiker, der beschreibt, dass alle Menschen gleich sind", wurde durch die im 18. Jahrhundert entstandene Naturrechtslehre weiter gefestigt (vgl.: Müller 2017, 03:06-03:20). Die "überlieferten konkreten Freiheiten der Ständegesellschaft wurden dort in eine allgemeine Freiheit des Menschen umgedacht" (Maier 1997, S. 11). Wegweisend war, dass diese Rechte nun allen Menschen zugesprochen wurden und diese Rechte Ansprüche an den Staat stellten (vgl. Maier, 1997 S. 11f). Denn "[er sollte] nicht tun dürfen, was ihm beliebt, [und] in substantielle Bezirke individueller Freiheit nicht […] eingreifen dürfen" (Maier 1997, S. 12). Als vorstaatliche Rechte kann der Staat diese nur akzeptieren, nicht aber verleihen.
Die Idee der unveräußerlichen Menschenrechte kulminierte schließlich in der Unabhängigkeitserklärung der 13 britischen Kolonien 1776 in Nordamerika (zentrales Dokument: Virginia Bill of Rights) und fand schließlich 1789 in der Französischen Revolution (zentrales Dokument: Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen) in Europa ihren Durchbruch. Diese Dokumente legten den Grundstein für die modernen Menschenrechte, die nun als Grundrechte in zahlreichen Verfassungen verankert sind. Schließlich, im Jahr 1966, wurden die ersten völkerrechtlich bindenden Menschenrechtsabkommen durch die Vereinten Nationen verabschiedet (vgl.: Wagner 2016).
Besonders eindrücklich zeigt die Geschichte der Menschenrechte, dass ihre Idee auf "konkrete Unrechtserfahrungen der Menschen des Okzidents zurückgehen" (Tetzlaff 1998, S. 60). Darauf, nämlich dass die Menschenrechte 'im Westen' ihren Ursprung haben und individualistisch geprägt seien, bezieht sich im Wesentlichen die Kritik an ihnen. Diese Kritik zieht auch in Zweifel, ob die Menschenrechte universell sind. (Kultur-)Relativismus vs. Universalismus
Verfechter des Universalismus verstehen die Menschenrechte als unveräußerliche, angeborene Rechte eines jeden Menschen. "Niemand kann, mit Bezug auf welche Eigenschaft auch immer, von der Trägerschaft ausgeschlossen werden" (Lohmann 2010, S. 37). Ausgeschlossen ist hierbei auch die "ungleiche Verteilung" der Rechte (vgl. Lohmann 2010, S. 37). So muss der Staat seinen Pflichten nachkommen und für die Einhaltung, Wahrung und Durchsetzung der Menschenrechte sorgen.
Jedoch werden die Menschenrechte, wie sie 1948 verabschiedet wurden, in ihrem universellen Gültigkeitsanspruch von vielen Ländern und Kulturen auf der Welt nicht akzeptiert. Der (Kultur-) Relativismus in seiner extremen Form sieht die Menschenrechte als nicht vollständig übertragbar und "nur relativ zu einem bestimmten Kultursystem 'begründbar'" (Lohmann 2009). Manche Staaten gehen sogar so weit und verstehen die Menschenrechte als ein westliches Produkt, das "dem Osten" aufoktroyiert wurde. Auch seien die Menschenrechte nicht, wie der universalistische Anspruch behauptet, unabhängig von Zeit, Raum und kulturellem Hintergrund gültig. Sie seien aus der europäisch-nordamerikanischen Aufklärung entstanden, abendländisch geprägt und somit nicht in dieser Form in anderen Kulturkreisen anwendbar. Zudem sei ihre "weltweite Propagierung Ausdruck einer Mentalität der Einmischung, welche die Tradition des Kolonialismus mit anderen Mitteln fortsetze" (Hilpert 2019, S. 230). Tatsächlich sei "das Menschenrechtsverständnis in erster Linie abhängig von dem Menschenbild in einer spezifischen Kultur […], wonach es keinen Standard gibt, der unabhängig von bestimmten sozialen Lebensformen wäre" (Pohl 2002, S. 7).
Von (Kultur-)Relativisten konkret kritisiert werden häufig die "individuelle Selbstbestimmung, die körperliche Unversehrtheit, das Vorrangverhältnis zwischen Individuum zur Gemeinschaft, die Gleichheit von Männern und Frauen, die religiöse Toleranz und die Einschätzung demokratischer Mitbestimmung" (Lohmann 2010, S. 41).
Zum anderen wird bemängelt, dass bei der Verabschiedung der Allgemeinen Erklärung der Menschenrechte im Jahr 1948 die westlichen Länder dominierten, während die meisten Länder des Globalen Südens noch unter kolonialer Herrschaft standen. Viele Staaten werfen dem Westen sogar "moralischen Chauvinismus" (Pollis/Schwab 2006, S. 68), "Ideologismus" und eine "quasi-religiöse" Auslegung der Menschenrechte vor (Pohl 2002, S. 7).
Genau an diese Dichotomie, Universalismus und (Kultur-)Relativismus, knüpfte die 1993 vorgelegte Deklaration von Bangkok an, welche von vielen (süd-)ostasiatischen Ländern unterzeichnet wurde. Bevor die Wiener Menschenrechtskonferenz im Jahr 1993 begann, zweifelten diese Länder die Universalität der Menschenrechte an und legten eine "asiatische Perspektive" auf die Menschenrechte und sogenannte "asiatische Werte" vor.
Die asiatische Perspektive auf die (Universalität der) Menschenrechte und 'asiatische Werte'
Die ,asiatische Sicht' auf die Menschenrechte und die 'asiatischen Werte' werden im Grunde kulturrelativistisch begründet. Im folgenden Abschnitt werden die 'asiatischen Werte' zeitgeschichtlich eingeordnet und näher erläutert.
Die zeitgeschichtliche Einordnung der 'asiatischen Werte'
Die Kontroverse, dass sich die Menschenrechte in (Südost-)Asien anders entwickelt hätten, spitzte sich Anfang der 1990er Jahre zu und erlangte mit der Verabschiedung der Deklaration von Bangkok weltumspannende Beachtung. Die Gründe für den Ausbruch dieser Debatte sind vielfältig. Zum einen genoss 'der Westen', vor allem die Europäische Union und die Vereinigten Staaten, zu dieser Zeit beispielloses politisches und ökonomisches Selbstbewusstsein. Der Ost-West-Konflikt war beendet, die Demokratie und der Kapitalismus schienen 'die' Erfolgsmodelle zu sein, die "das Ende der Geschichte" einläuteten (Fukuyama 1992). Die Globalisierung schritt unaufhaltsam voran, während der Kommunismus in vielen osteuropäischen Ländern in sich zusammenbrach. Zudem gewann die Idee des politischen und wirtschaftlichen Liberalismus mehr und mehr an Bedeutung.
In dieser Zeit gingen die Vereinigten Staaten und viele Mitgliedsstaaten der EU auf die Forderung vieler Menschenrechtsorganisationen ein, die Menschenrechte und die Demokratie in anderen Ländern zu verbreiten. Die Regierung unter Präsident Bill Clinton ging sogar so weit und erklärte sowohl die Verbreitung der Menschenrechte als auch der Demokratie zu einer der drei Säulen der US-amerikanischen Außenpolitik (vgl.: Barr 2000, S. 313). Allerdings missbilligte insbesondere China den menschenrechtlichen Druck vieler westlicher Staaten, der durch das Massaker von Tiananmen im Jahr 1989 und Chinas Tibet-Politik stetig zunahm.
Hinzu kam, dass viele ostasiatische Staaten, allen voran China, Malaysia, Japan, Hongkong, Taiwan, Singapur und Südkorea, als 'ostasiatische Wirtschaftswunder' bezeichnet wurden (vgl.: Ernst 2009). Diese wirtschaftliche Prosperität ließ ein "neues Selbstbewusstsein und eine neue politische Elite entstehen, die vom 'Westen' das Recht auf einen eigenen entwicklungspolitischen Weg einforderte und die Vormachtstellung der alten Industriestaaten Europas und Nordamerikas herausforderte" (Ernst 2009). Darüber hinaus sahen sie in der Rolle des starken Staates eine wichtige "Erklärungsvariable" für den wirtschaftlichen Erfolg (Heinz 1995, S. 11).
Die Bestimmtheit, mit der die Europäische Union und die Vereinigten Staaten um die Durchsetzung der Menschenrechte in Asien rangen, wurde von (ost-)asiatischen Ländern als Versuch verstanden, ,Asien' ,dem Westen' unterwürfig zu halten. Zudem wurde die Kritik als "Einmischung, irrelevant und kulturfremd abgewehrt" (Heinz 1995, S. 12).Schließlich, im Vorfeld der Wiener Menschenrechtskonferenz im Jahr 1993, "bestritten [unter anderem] die Regierungen Indonesiens, Singapurs und Chinas die Universalität der Menschenrechte" (Heinz 1995, S. 16). Stattdessen müssten die jeweiligen wirtschaftlichen, sozialen und politischen Bedingungen betrachtet werden, weil sie nur anhand derer verwirklicht werden könnten (vgl.: Heinz 1995, S. 15f). Deshalb wurden sogenannte 'asiatische Werte' vorgestellt. Was sind 'asiatische Werte'?
'Asiatische Werte' beschreiben eine (kultur-)relative Sicht auf die Menschenrechte, die in den frühen 1990er Jahren von asiatischen Politiker*innen und Wissenschaftler*innen vorgestellt und von 34 Staaten verabschiedet wurden. Sie umfassen im Groben die Bereiche Politik, Wirtschaft und Kultur (vgl.: Tai 2005, S. 34). Federführend bei der Debatte waren Lee Kuan Yew, der damalige Premierminister von Singapur, und Mahathir bin Mohamad, der damalige Premierminister von Malaysia. Sie, die 'asiatischen Werte', sollen eine Anpassung zum aus asiatischer Sicht "westlichen Modell der Menschenrechte" darstellen (Henders 2017). Die regionale Bezeichnung 'Asien/asiatisch' bezieht sich in diesem Zusammenhang eher auf (Süd-) Ostasien beziehungsweise pazifisch-Asien als auf den Nahen oder Mittleren Osten. Das bedeutet auch, dass sich die 'asiatischen Werte' hauptsächlich auf die "konfuzianische Kultur" stützen und weniger vom Islam oder dem Hinduismus geprägt sind (Ernst 2009).
Allerdings lehnen die ostasiatischen Länder die Menschenrechte nicht grundsätzlich ab. Schließlich haben einige dieser Länder, darunter China, die Allgemeine Erklärung der Menschenrechte 1948 verabschiedet und bekräftigten 1993 in Wien nochmals ihren Einsatz für Prinzipien, die in der Erklärung enthalten sind (vgl.: Tay 1996, S. 751). Sie plädierten mit der Deklaration von Bangkok stattdessen für nationale und regionale Unterschiede in der Schwerpunktsetzung und auch in der praktischen Umsetzung der Menschenrechte (vgl.: Tay 1996 S. 751f).
Befürworter der 'asiatischen Werte' bestanden zudem darauf, dass sie nicht nur durch den wirtschaftlichen Erfolg, den die ostasiatischen Staaten in den Jahrzehnten vor der Wiener Menschenrechtskonvention 1993 erlebt hatten, legitimiert würden, sondern auch maßgeblich für diesen Erfolg verantwortlich seien. Darüber hinaus müsse die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung bei ökonomisch aufstrebenden Ländern über allem stehen; bürgerliche und politische Rechte sollten den ökonomischen und sozialen Rechten deswegen untergeordnet sein (vgl.: Henders 2017).
Bisher wurde keine offizielle "umfassende, verbindliche Liste" vorgestellt (Heinz 1995, S. 25), aber häufig genannte 'asiatische Werte', die bei der Wiener Menschenrechtskonvention 1993 vorgelegt wurden, waren: "Disziplin, harte Arbeit, eine starke Führungskraft" (Tai 2005, S. 34ff), "Sparsamkeit, akademischer Erfolg, die Balance zwischen individuellen und gemeinschaftlichen Bedürfnissen, Respekt vor Autorität" (Henders 2017) und ein starker, stabiler Staat (Barr 2000, S. 310). Darüber hinaus wird "nationales Teamwork", die Erhaltung einer "moralisch sauberen Umwelt" (das Magazin 'Playboy' wird in Singapur beispielsweise nicht verkauft) und keine absolute Pressefreiheit für zentral erachtet (Heinz 1995, S. 26).
Die asiatische Perspektive auf die Universalität der Menschenrechte
Im Diskurs um die ,asiatische Perspektive' haben sich mehrere häufig genannte Argumente herausgebildet. Einige davon sollen näher beschrieben werden, nämlich die Behauptungen, dass Rechte kulturspezifisch seien, die Gemeinschaft in Asien über dem Individuum stehe, dass Rechte ausschließlich den jeweiligen Staaten oblägen und dass soziale und ökonomische Rechte über zivilen und politischen Rechten ständen.
Rechte sind kulturspezifisch
Die Idee der Menschenrechte entstand bereits in der Antike auf dem europäischen Kontinent und entwickelte sich schließlich unter bestimmten sozialen, ökonomischen, kulturellen und politischen Bedingungen ebendort und in Nordamerika (vgl.: Li 1996, S. 19). Die Umstände, die die Umsetzung der Menschenrechte voranbrachten, könnten aber nicht auf diese Art auf Südostasien übertragen werden. So beschreibt China in seinem 1991 veröffentlichten Weißbuch, dass sich aufgrund des eigenen historischen Hintergrunds, des Sozialsystems und der jeweiligen ökonomischen Entwicklung die Länder in ihrem Verständnis und ihrer Auslegung der Menschenrechte unterscheiden würden (vgl.: Weißbuch 1991, Vorwort). Das ist eine Haltung, welche auch 1993 auf der Menschenrechtskonferenz in Wien nochmals bekräftigt wurde (vgl.: Li 1996, S.19).
Die Gemeinschaft steht über dem Individuum
Die südostasiatischen Länder insistierten, dass die Bedeutung der Gemeinschaft in asiatischen Ländern nicht mit dem Primat des Individuums vereinbar sei, worauf die Vorstellung der Menschenrechte beruht (Li 1996, S. 19). Zudem stünden Pflichten über Rechten (vgl.: Nghia 2009, S. 21). Dies seien auch die entscheidenden Faktoren, die 'Asien' fundamental vom 'Westen' unterschieden. Die Menschenrechte seien von Natur aus individualistisch geprägt, was nach (süd-)ostasiatischer Auffassung eine Bedrohung für den (süd-)ostasiatischen sozial-gemeinschaftlichen Gesellschaftsmechanismus darstellen könnte. Als Begründung für diese Behauptung führten die (süd-)ostasiatischen Staaten den Zusammenbruch vieler Familien, die Drogenabhängigkeit und die hohe Zahl an Obdachlosen im 'Westen' an (vgl.: Li 1996, S. 20).
Soziale und ökonomische Rechte stehen über zivilen und politischen Rechten
Zentral bei der ,asiatischen Auslegung' der Menschenrechte waren die Priorisierung der Gemeinschaft gegenüber der Individuen und die Suche nach dem Konsens im Gegensatz zum Konflikt. Dominanz und Autorität würden nicht limitiert oder gar als suspekt betrachtet, sondern gälten im Gegenteil als vertrauens- und förderungswürdig (vgl.: Tay 1996, S. 753ff). Die asiatische Auslegung, so wurde argumentiert, lege den Fokus auf ökonomische und soziale Rechte, die durch ein starkes wirtschaftliches Wachstum und Wohlstand legitimiert würden, worauf Asiat*innen Wert legten und was ihnen wichtig sei. So proklamiert das Weißbuch der chinesischen Regierung aus dem Jahr 1991, dass "sich sattessen und warm kleiden die fundamentalen Bedürfnisse der chinesischen Bevölkerung seien, die lange unter Hunger und Kälte leiden mussten" (Weißbuch 1991, Kapitel I). Wohlstand könne nur effizient erreicht werden, wenn die Regierenden autorisiert seien, die politischen Rechte ihrer Bürger*innen zu limitieren, um wirtschaftlichen Wohlstand zu garantieren (Li 1996, S. 20). Die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung müsse deswegen bei ökonomisch aufstrebenden Ländern über allem stehen; zivile und politische Rechte sollten den ökonomischen und sozialen Rechten untergeordnet sein (vgl.: Henders, 2017). Implizit schwingt bei dieser Behauptung mit, dass erst alle basalen Bedürfnisse und eine stabile politische Ordnung sichergestellt werden müssten, um politische und bürgerliche Rechte zu implementieren (vgl.: Li 1996, S. 20f). Befürworter der Idee der asiatischen Perspektive erachten es somit für wichtig, den Staat als Oberhoheit zu sehen (vgl.: Henders 2017).
Rechte sind die Angelegenheit der jeweiligen Staaten
Das Recht eines Staates zur Selbstbestimmung schließe den Zuständigkeitsbereich der Menschenrechte mit ein. So seien Menschenrechte innenpolitische Angelegenheiten, in die sich andere Staaten oder Organisationen nicht einzumischen hätten (vgl.: Li 1996, S. 20). "Die Bestrebung des Westens, auch bei Entwicklungsländern einen universellen Geltungsanspruch der Menschenrechte durchzusetzen, sei versteckter kultureller Imperialismus und ein Versuch, die Entwicklung [wirtschaftlich aufstrebender Länder] zu behindern" (Li 1996, S. 20).
Kritik an der asiatischen Perspektive Generell wurde bemängelt, dass nicht einfach über 'asiatische' Werte geredet werden könne, weil es die einzelnen asiatischen Länder simplifiziere, stereotypisiere und sie um ihre Vielfalt bringe (vgl.: Henders 2017). Des Weiteren seien die genannten Werte nicht alleinig in Asien zu finden, sondern hätten auch in anderen Teilen der Welt Gültigkeit (vgl.: Tai 2005, S. 35). Tatsächlich, so wurde argumentiert, gebe es keine ,asiatischen Werte', denn der Begriff sei mit "seiner Allgemeinheit und Undifferenziertheit ein Konstrukt, das ganz bestimmten Zielen dienen soll" (Schreiner 1996, S. 57). Außerdem seien nur mächtige Politiker*innen leitender Teil der Debatte gewesen; die Argumente seien weder in die Gesellschaft getragen noch philosophisch (fort-)geführt worden. Die einzelnen 'asiatischen' Argumente gegen die Universalität der Menschenrechte wurden jedoch auch einzeln kritisiert. Einige Kritiker*innen stellten die Ansicht der Kulturspezifizität in Frage. Das Argument impliziere, dass soziale Normen, die in anderen Ländern und Kulturkreisen ihren Ursprung hatten, in der asiatischen Kultur keine Anwendung finden sollten oder könnten. Kapitalistische Märkte und die Konsumkultur, welche ebenfalls außerhalb der asiatischen Länder entstanden sind, konnten jedoch sehr wohl von asiatischen Kulturen aufgenommen werden (vgl.: Li 1996, S. 20). Die schwerfällige Akzeptanz und Umsetzung der Universalität der Menschenrechte könne somit nicht ausschließlich auf ihre kulturelle Herkunft zurückgeführt werden.
Die zweite Behauptung, dass Asiat*innen die Gemeinschaft über das Individuum stellten, würde als kulturelles Argument missbraucht werden, um aufzuzeigen, dass unveräußerliche Rechte eines Einzelnen sich nicht mit der Idee von asiatischen Gesellschaften verstünden. Kritiker*innen der ,asiatischen Perspektive' sahen hier die Gefahr der generellen Verdammung der Rechte des Einzelnen. Dabei würden individuelle Freiheiten den asiatischen Gemeinschaftswerten nicht generell oppositionell gegenüberstehen. Vielmehr seien grundlegende Rechte, wie eine Versammlungs- und Meinungsfreiheit sowie Toleranz, wichtig für eine Gemeinschaft (vgl.: Li 1996, S. 21).
Beim dritten Argument, welches die südostasiatischen Länder vorlegten, kritisierten viele Verfechter*innen der Universalität der Menschenrechte, dass die nationale ökonomische Entwicklung nicht gleichzusetzen sei mit der ökonomischen Absicherung (sozio-)ökonomisch benachteiligter Gruppen einer Gesellschaft. Nationales ökonomisches Wachstum garantiere schließlich nicht automatisch Rechte für ökonomisch benachteiligte Mitglieder einer Gesellschaft. Stattdessen würden sich politisch-zivile und sozial-ökonomische Rechte bedingen und nur effektiv wirken, wenn alle vier Ebenen garantiert werden könnten (vgl.: Li 1996, S. 22).
Abschließend wurde kritisiert, dass die vorgebrachten Argumente, insbesondere die Forderung der Nichteinmischung in innerstaatliche Angelegenheiten, als Vorwand für einen illiberalen und autoritären Regierungsstil verwendet werden würden. Zudem sollten diese Argumente die Schwäche des wirtschaftlichen Entwicklungsmodells der asiatischen Länder verschleiern (vgl.: Henders 2017). Das sind beides Kritikpunkte, die während der asiatischen Wirtschaftskrise 1997/1998 weitgehend bestätigt wurden und zur Verabschiedung der asiatischen Erklärung der Menschenrechte im Jahr 1998 führten.
Was ist mit 'asiatischen Werten' passiert?
Der Dialog über die in der Deklaration von Bangkok vorgestellten 'asiatischen Werte' begleitete staatliche und nicht-staatliche Akteure sowie Wissenschaftler*innen bis in die 1990er Jahre hinein. Als im Jahr 1997 eine Wirtschafts- und Finanzkrise Asien ereilte, wurde es jedoch nicht nur still um die 'asiatischen Werte', sie wurden nun sogar "als Ursache der Krise gedeutet" (Ernst 2009). Insbesondere die staatliche Intervention und die starken Familienwerte wurden als Verursacher genannt (vgl.: Ernst 2009). Um den wirtschaftlichen Anschluss an den industriellen 'Westen' nicht zu verlieren, waren Menschenrechtsorganisationen in Südostasien bemüht, den Menschenrechtsschutz bottom-up durchzusetzen. Die Asiatische Menschenrechtscharta, die die 'asiatischen Werte' ablehnt, wurde 1998 von Menschenrechtsorganisationen in Kwangju, Südkorea, verabschiedet. Sie ist auch ein Versuch, asiatische Regierungen bei Menschenrechtsverstößen zukünftig in die Verantwortung nehmen zu können.
Seit dem Ausbruch der asiatischen Wirtschaftskrise ist die Debatte um 'asiatische Werte' nahezu versiegt. Gleichwohl werden interkulturelle Dialoge über die Menschenrechte weiter geführt. Zwischen Kulturrelativismus und Universalismus – Perspektiven für einen Dialog
Eine globale Durchsetzung der Menschenrechte bleibt nach wie vor ein Ideal, ebenso wie deren uneingeschränkte Einhaltung. Die ostasiatischen Länder sind nur ein Beispiel von vielen, denn Kritik an der Universalität der Menschenrechte kommt auch aus anderen Ländern und von anderen Religionen. Dabei hat die Forderung nach weltweiter Umsetzung der Menschenrechte nicht an Dringlichkeit verloren. Wie kann aber ein Dialog über die Menschenrechte oder gar ein Konsens vorangebracht werden?
Bei dieser Problematik ist es wichtig zu bedenken, dass die Menschenrechte kein starres System sind, sondern auch nach ihrer Verabschiedung im Jahr 1948 weiterentwickelt wurden. Zudem hat die Idee der Menschenrechte zwar primär in der Zeit der europäisch-amerikanischen Aufklärung ihre Wurzeln, konnte ihre volle Durchsetzungskraft jedoch erst in der Moderne entfalten (vgl.: Bielefeldt 1999, S. 59f). Insbesondere im Hinblick auf das Argument der Nichtumsetzbarkeit der Menschenrechte in kulturell anders geprägten Regionen "wäre es verfehlt, den Begriff der 'Aufklärung' auf eine bestimmte Epoche der europäischen Geschichte zu verkürzen" (Bielefeldt 1999, S. 60). Schließlich muss es auch für andere Kulturen möglich sein, "humane Anliegen der eigenen Tradition in moderner Gestalt in den Menschenrechten wiederzuerkennen" (Bielefeldt 1999, S. 61).
Aufgrund dessen sprechen sich viele Wissenschaftler*innen für eine Adaption der Menschenrechte aus. Die US-amerikanische Politikwissenschaftlerin Alison Dundes Renteln, beispielsweise, "möchte am Begriff universaler Menschenrechte durchaus festhalten, ihn zugleich aber auf interkultureller Basis inhaltlich neu bestimmen […], indem sie nach einem weltweit gemeinsamen Nenner in den Wertorientierungen unterschiedlicher Kulturen sucht" (Bielefeldt 1999, S. 45f). Der kanadische Philosoph Charles Taylor spricht sich für einen "ungezwungenen Konsens" aus, der anderen kulturellen Normen Verständnis entgegenbringt (Taylor 1999, S. 124). Der Dialog über die Menschenrechte zwischen Asien und 'dem Westen' solle sich global ausweiten und eine Auseinandersetzung über eine Übereinstimmung an Normen, die menschliches Verhalten und politisches Handeln leiten sollten, starten. Dieser Grundkonsens auf der Basis der Menschenrechte soll bindend sein, darf sich aber in seiner Begründung unterscheiden (vgl.: Carnegie Council 1996). Der deutsche Philosoph Georg Lohmann vertritt wiederum die Position, dass der "Universalismus" nicht zwingend eine "Einheitskultur darstellt oder in einer solchen resultiert" (Lohmann 2009). Für ihn sind Universalismus und Relativismus auch keine Gegensätze; er sieht im Partikularismus das Gegenteil zum Universalismus. Deshalb ist er der Ansicht, dass ein "verwirklichter und rechtlich wie politisch konkretisierter universeller Menschenrechtsschutz die Möglichkeiten einer kulturellen Vielfalt der Menschen erweitern wird" (Lohmann 2009). Kulturelle Vielfalt ist hier aber nicht mit Willkür gleichzusetzen. Unterscheiden muss man zwischen "Besonderheiten, die mit dem Universalismus der Menschenrechte kompatibel sind und solchen, die ihm widersprechen" (Lohmann 2009). "Strikter" soll der Universalismus bei negativen Pflichten agieren, so zum Beispiel beim Verbot von Folter (Lohmann 2009). Bei positiven Pflichten, wie beispielsweise bei Leistungsrechten, kann der Universalismus lockerer angewendet werden und mehrere, kulturell unterschiedliche Auslegungen zulassen (vgl.: Lohmann 2009). Ein interkultureller Dialog und die Suche nach einem Konsens bedeuten jedoch nicht, dass "die Menschenrechte [völlig neu überdacht und] bereits bestehende international vereinbarte Standards und Konventionen […] abgetan werden sollen. Das wäre gefährlich" (Utrecht 1995, S. 11). Für eine strikte Durchsetzung ideal, so konkludiert Lohmann, "wäre ein gut etabliertes Rechtssystem, in dem die Menschenrechte individuell eingeklagt und mit Hilfe staatlicher Gewalten auch durchgesetzt werden können" (Lohmann 2013, S. 19). Fazit
Viele (süd-)ostasiatische Länder brachten im Jahr 1993 mit der Deklaration von Bangkok kulturrelativistische Argumente hervor, mit denen sie ihre Sichtweise auf die Universalität der Menschenrechte aufzeigten und rechtfertigten. Eine zentrale Begründung war hier, dass das "individualistische Rechtsverständnis" der Menschenrechte nicht mit dem asiatischen Gemeinschaftsverständnis vereinbar sei (Tetzlaff 2002, S. 5). Ebenso waren die Kulturspezifität von Rechten und das Primat des wirtschaftlichen Wohlstands Teil der Begründung. Auseinandersetzungen darüber fanden bis weit in die 1990er Jahre hinein viel Gehör und Gegenrede. Erst mit der asiatischen Wirtschafts- und Finanzkrise 1997/1998 wurde es still um die 'asiatischen Werte'. Was von der Debatte allerdings bleibt, ist die Diskussion über den Universalismus und den (Kultur-) Relativismus, für die der Menschenrechtsrat (MRR) der Vereinten Nationen in Genf eine Plattform bietet.
Bei allen Vorschlägen und Denkanstößen, die eine kulturelle Sensibilität und Variabilität ermöglichen sollen, ist der interkulturelle Dialog zentral. Fraglich bleibt jedoch, wie gut sich eine Diskussion über Normen auf der Basis der Menschenrechte und deren anschließende Durchsetzung in autoritär geführten Staaten durchsetzen lässt (vgl.: Carnegie Council 1996). Denn schließlich sagte schon Konfuzius (551 v. Chr. bis 479 v. Chr.), dass es sinnlos sei, miteinander Pläne zu schmieden, wenn über das Grundsätzliche keine Einigkeit bestehe.
Literatur Amnesty International (o. A.): Einführung in die Menschenrechte. (o. D.) Abrufbar unter: https://www.amnesty.ch/de/themen/menschenrechte/zahlen-fakten-und-hintergruende/einfuehrung-in-die-menschenrechte#was%20sind%20MR (zuletzt aufgerufen am 31.08.2020).Barr, Michael D.: Lee Kuan Yew and the "Asian Values" Debate. In: Asian Studies Review, Band 24, Ausgabe 3 (September 2000). S. 309-334. Verfügbar unter: http://www.cafefle.org/texteskkkmg-icc_articles/13_Singapore_26p-Pol%20copie.pdf (zuletzt aufgerufen am 05.09.2020).Bell, Daniel A.: The East Asian Challenge to Human Rights: Reflections on an East West Dialogue. In: Human Rights Quarterly, Band 18, Ausgabe 3 (1996). S. 641-667. Verfügbar unter: http://faculty.smcm.edu/jwschroeder/Web/ETHR1002/Global_Jutice_Readings_files/13.BellEastAsianChallenge.pdf (zuletzt aufgerufen am 05.09.2020). Bielefeldt, Heiner: Universale Menschenrechte angesichts der Pluralität der Kulturen. In: Hans-Richard Reuter (Hrsg.): Ethik der Menschenrechte. Zum Streit um die Universalität einer Idee I. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1999. S. 11-43.
Carnegie Council (o. A.): A Proposal for an "Unforced Consensus". Human Rights Dialogue 1.5 (Summer 1996): "Cultural Sources of Human Rights in Asia". Erschienen am 05.06.1996 beim Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. Abrufbar unter: https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/archive/dialogue/1_05/articles/525 (zuletzt aufgerufen am 09.09.2020). Chan, Benedict S. B.: Are International Human Rights Universal? – East-West Philosophical Debates on Human Rights to Liberty and Health. In: Metaphysics of Human Rights 1948-2018: On the Occasion of the 70th Anniversary of the UDHR. Wilmington: Vernon Press 2019. S. 135-152.Chiam, Sou: Asia's Experience in the Quest for a Regional Human Rights Mechanism. In: Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, Band 40, Ausgabe 1 (2009). S. 127-148.Verfügbar unter: https://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/vuwlr/article/download/5382/4709 (zuletzt aufgerufen am 06.09.2020).Dallmayr, Fred R.: "Asian Values" and Global Human Rights. In: Philosophy East and West, Band 52, Ausgabe 2 (April 2002). S. 173-189. Verfügbar unter: http://faculty.smcm.edu/jwschroeder/Web/ETHR1002/Global_Jutice_Readings_files/14.dallmayr.pdf (zuletzt aufgerufen am 05.09.2020).Davis, Michael C.: Human Rights in Asia: China and the Bangkok Declaration. In: Buffalo Journal of International Law, Band 2, Ausgabe 2, Article 3 (1996). S. 215-230.Verfügbar unter: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/bjil/vol2/iss2/3 (zuletzt aufgerufen am 08.09.2020).Ernst, Sonja: Die Debatte um asiatische Werte. Rückblick und Bilanz. Erschienen am 12. Oktober 2009 in der Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. Abrufbar unter: https://www.bpb.de/internationales/weltweit/menschenrechte/38715/asiatische-werte?p=all (zuletzt aufgerufen am 05.09.2020). Fukuyama, Francis: Das Ende der Geschichte. München: Kindler 1992.
Galtung, Johan: Menschenrechte – anders gesehen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp 1994.
Gareis, Sven Bernhard/Varwick, Johannes: Die Vereinten Nationen. Aufgaben, Instrumente und Reformen. 5. Aufl. Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich 2014.Hamm, Brigitte: Empirische Analysen über politische Menschenrechte – Perspektiven für den internationalen Schutz der Menschenrechte. In: INEF Report, Heft 36 (1999). Duisburg: Gerhard-Mercator-Universität 1999. Verfügbar unter: http://edoc.vifapol.de/opus/volltexte/2013/4570/pdf/report36.pdf (zuletzt aufgerufen am 04.09.2020). Heidelmeyer, Wolfgang (Hrsg.): Die Menschenrechte. 3. erneuerte und erweiterte Aufl. Paderborn: Schöningh 1982.Heinz, Wolfgang S.: Gibt es ein asiatisches Entwicklungsmodell? Zur Diskussion über 'asiatische Werte'. In: Berichte / BIOst, Ausgabe 55 (1995). Köln: Bundesinstitut für ostwissenschaftliche und internationale Studien 1995. Verfügbar unter: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-42151 (zuletzt aufgerufen am 06.09.2020). Henders, Susan J.: Asian Values. Erschienen am 25. September 2017 in der Encyclopaedia Britannica. Abrufbar unter: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Asian-values (zuletzt aufgerufen am 31.08.2020). Hilpert, Konrad: Ethik der Menschenrechte. Zwischen Rhetorik und Verwirklichung. Paderborn: Schöningh 2019.
Hoffmann, Johannes (Hrsg.): Universale Menschenrechte im Widerspruch der Kulturen. Das eine Menschenrecht für alle und die vielen Lebensformen. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag für interkulturelle Kommunikation 1994.Human Rights (o. A.): Definitionen. Erschienen am 11.12.2012. Abrufbar unter: https://www.humanrights.ch/de/ipf/grundlagen/einsteiger-innen/was-sind-menschenrechte/ (zuletzt aufgerufen am 31.08.2020).Human Rights (o. A.): Was heißt "Universalität der Menschenrechte"? Erschienen am 10. Oktober 2018. Abrufbar unter: https://www.humanrights.ch/de/ipf/archiv/themen/universalitaet/heisst-universalitaet-menschenrechte (zuletzt aufgerufen am 31.08.2020).Krennerich, Michael: Zehn Fragen zu Menschenrechten. Erschienen am 12. Oktober 2009 in der Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. Abrufbar unter: https://www.bpb.de/internationales/weltweit/menschenrechte/38627/zehn-fragen (zuletzt aufgerufen am 31.08.2020). Li, Xiaorong: Asian Values and the Universality of Human Rights. In: Report from the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, Band 16, Ausgabe 2 (Frühling 1996). Maryland. S. 18-28. Lohmann, Georg: Kulturelle Besonderung und Universalisierung der Menschenrechte. In: Gerhard Ernst, Stephan Sellmaier (Hrsg.): Universelle Menschenrechte und partikulare Moral. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 2010. S. 33-48.
Lohmann, Georg: Kulturelle Menschenrechte und der Kampf gegen Ungerechtigkeit. In: Johannes Ebert/Ronald Grätz (Hrsg.): Menschenrechte und Kultur. Göttingen: Steidl 2014. S. 19-28.Lohmann, Georg: Universelle Menschenrechte und kulturelle Besonderheiten. Erschienen am 12.10.2009 in der Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. Abrufbar unter: https://www.bpb.de/internationales/weltweit/menschenrechte/38709/universelle-menschenrechte (zuletzt aufgerufen am 09.09.2020).Lohmann, Georg: Werden die Menschenrechte überschätzt? In: zfmr, Ausgabe 2 (2013). S. 9-24. Lohmann, Georg: Zur Verständigung über die Universalität der Menschenrechte. Eine Einführung. In: Günter Nooke, Georg Lohmann, Gerhard Wahlers (Hrsg.), Gelten Menschenrechte universal? Begründungen und Infragestellungen. Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder 2008. S. 47-60.
Maier, Hans: Wie universell sind Menschenrechte? Freiburg im Breisgau: Verlag Herder 1997.Müller, Ragnar: Pharos e.V. Stuttgart/Sarajevo: Pharos e.V. Menschenrechte Dr. Ragnar Müller. Veröffentlicht am 09.12.2017 auf YouTube. Abrufbar unter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbaLtEMcCXo&t=191s (zuletzt abgerufen am 04.09.2020). Nghia, Hoang: The "Asian Values" Perspective of Human Rights: A Challenge to Universal Human Rights. Hanoi: Vietnamese Institute for Human Rights 2009. Verfügbar unter: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1405436 (zuletzt aufgerufen am 06.09.2020).Pohl, Karl-Heinz: Zwischen Universalismus und Kulturrelativismus. Menschenrechte und interkultureller Dialog mit China. In: Occasional Papers, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Menschenrechte Trier, Ausgabe 5 (Februar 2002). Verfügbar unter: https://www.humanrights.ch/cms/upload/pdf/070108_pohl_universalitaet.pdf (zuletzt aufgerufen am 06.09.2020). Pollis, Adamantia und Schwab, Peter: Human Rights: A Western Construct with Limited Applicability. In: Christine M. Koggel: Moral and Political Theory. Moral Issues in Global Perspective I. 2. Aufl. Peterborough: Broadview Press 2006. S. 60-72.Schreiner, Klaus H.: Asiatische Werte kontra Menschenrechtsimperialismus? (Rück-)Blick auf eine Debatte. In: Südostasien Informationen, Band 11, Ausgabe 4 (1995). S. 56-57. Tai, Pak Chong: Das Verhältnis der asiatischen Werte zur Idee der Menschenrechte. In: Reinhard C. Meier-Walser/Anton Rauscher (Hrsg.): Die Universalität der Menschenrechte. München: Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung e.V. 2005. S. 27-39.Tay, Simon S.C.: Human Rights, Culture, and the Singaporean Example. In: McGill Law Journal, Band 41 (1996). S. 743-780. Taylor, Charles: Conditions of an Unforced Consensus on Human Rights. In: Bauer, Joanne/Bell, Daniel (Hrsg.): The East Asian Challenge for Human Rights, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1999. S. 124-144.Tetzlaff, Rainer: Modernisierung und Menschenrechte aus politikwissenschaftlicher Sicht. Zur Begründung einer relativen Universalität der Menschenrechte. In: Jahrbuch für christliche Sozialwissenschaften, Band 39 (1998). S. 54-82.Tetzlaff, Rainer: Über den Nutzen kultureller Eigentümlichkeiten: Das produktive Spannungsverhältnis zwischen universellen Menschenrechten und asiatischen Werten. In: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Vereinte Nationen (Hrsg.), Ausgabe 85 (2002). S. 5-12.UN-Vollversammlung: Allgemeine Erklärung der Menschenrechte. Die Vereinten Nationen, 217 (III) A, Paris: 1948. Artikel 2. Verfügbar unter: https://www.un.org/depts/german/menschenrechte/aemr.pdf (zuletzt aufgerufen am 16.09.2020).Utrecht, Artien: Asiatische Werte wieder in der Menschenrechtsdebatte. Beobachtungen und Anmerkungen zu einer internationalen Menschenrechtskonferenz in Kuala Lumpur. In: Südostasien Informationen, Band 11, Ausgabe 1 (1995). S. 10-11. Van Ness, Peter (Hrsg.): Debating Human Rights. Critical Essays from the United States and Asia. London: Routledge 1999. Wagner, Beate: 50 Jahre UN-Menschenrechtspakte. Erschienen am 04.03.2016 in der Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. Abrufbar unter: https://www.bpb.de/apuz/222193/50-jahre-un-menschenrechtspakte?p=all (zuletzt aufgerufen am 16.09.2020).Weißbuch: Embassy of the People's Republic of China in the Republic of Lithuana. Human Rights in China. White Paper of the Government. Erschienen 1991. Abrufbar unter: http://lt.chineseembassy.org/eng/zt/zfbps/t125236.htm (zuletzt aufgerufen am 03.09.2020). Zitat:
Zitate.eu: Zitate von Konfuzius. 2020. Abrufbar unter: https://www.zitate.eu/autor/konfuzius-zitate/9928 (zuletzt abgerufen am 10.09.2020).
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
Pınar Bilgin on Non-Western IR, Hybridity, and the One-Toothed Monster called Civilization
Questions of civilization underpin much of IR scholarship—whether explicitly (in terms of the construction of non-Western 'others') or implicitly (in the assumption that provincial institutions from Europe constitute a universal model of how we ought to relate to one another in international politics). While this topic surfaces frequently in debates about postcolonial international politics, few scholars are able to tackle this conundrum with the same sense of acuteness as Pınar Bilgin. In this Talk, she—amongst others—elaborates on not doing Turkish IR, what postsecular IR comprises, and discusses her own position in regards to that one-toothed monster called civilization.
Print version of this Talk (pdf)
What is, according to you, the biggest challenge / principal debate in current IR? What is your position or answer to this challenge / in this debate?
What I think is the biggest challenge in current IR is not so much a debate, but the difficulty for students of IR to come up with ways of making sense of the world in a way that appreciates different experiences and sensibilities and others' contributions and contestations. International Relations as we know it at the moment and as offered in the standard textbooks, portrays a world that they really don't recognize as the world that they live in. And I should point out that I am not just speaking of Non-Western experiences and sensibilities—there is in any case a growing body of literature on Non-Western IR, and you have spoken to Amitav Acharya (Theory Talk #42), Siba Grovogui (Theory Talk #57) and others—but I am also referring to all those perspectives in which international knowledge are presented and which the textbooks do not usually reflect, including feminist perspectives for instance (such as Ann Tickner, Theory Talk #54), or perspectives from the Global South some of which actually fall into the definition of 'the West'. So when I speak of ways of making sense of the world in a way that appreciates different experiences and sensibilities, I am referring to the agenda of Critical Theory of IR. I do think we have come a long way since the early 1990s when I was a student of IR and Critical Theory was beginning to make its mark then, but we still have a long way to go. For instance, critical approaches to security have come a long way in terms of considering insecurities of specific social groups that mainstream approaches overlook, but it has a long way to go still in terms of actually incorporating insecurities as viewed by those people, instead of just explaining them away.
As for the principal debate in IR, the debate that goes on in my mind is how to study IR in a way that appreciates different experiences and sensibilities and acknowledges other contributions as well as contestations. This is not the principal debate in the field, but the field that comes closest is the one that I try and contribute to, and that is the field of non-Western approaches to IR. It is not exactly a debate, of course, in the sense that the very mainstream Western approaches that it targets are not paying any attention. So it's the critics themselves who have their disagreements, and on the one hand there are those who point to other ways of thinking about the international, Stephen Chan comes to mind as the producer of one of the early examples of that. I can think of Robbie Shilliam's more recent book on the subject, thinking about the international from non-Western perspectives. On the other hand are those who survey IR in different parts of the world, to see how it is done, what their concerns and debates are. Ole Waever, Arlene Tickner and David Blaney's three-volume series 'Worlding Beyond the West' contains materials from both these directions.
My own approach is slightly different in that while acknowledging the limits of our approaches to IR as any critical IR person would, I don't necessarily think that turning to others' 'authentic' perspectives to look for different ways of thinking about the international is the way forward for students of IR. That brings me to back the way I set up the challenge to IR today: it is about incorporating others' perspectives, as well as acknowledging their contributions and contestations. I think I would like to take a more historical approach to this. It's not just about contemporary differences—studies on these are very valuable and I learn a lot from them—but what I've also found very valuable are connections: how much give and take has already taken place over the years, how for instance the roots of human rights can be found in multiple places in our history and in different parts of the world, how the Human Rights Convention was penned by multiple actors, how human rights norms don't go deep enough and how calls for deepening them have in fact emerged from different parts of the world, not just the West. So these contributions can actually point to our history and to different perspectives across the globe, but these are often referred to as non-Western IR, whereas they're actually pointing to our conversations, our communication, the give and take between us. That is what I am mainly interested in at the moment: the multiple authorship of ideas, and pointing to them you actually face the biggest challenge. It builds on Edward Said's legacy, so it's a critical IR project, the way I see it: Said built on multiple beginnings and engaged in contrapuntal reading. I should add that when I am talking about 'sensibilities', I am not necessarily talking about it with reference to other parts of the world, although it may seem this way. The more reflexive approaches to IR have taught us that we are all shaped by and all respond to our contexts—in one way or another.
One interesting result of Arlene Tickner's and Ole Waever's book, International Relations Scholarship around the World, was that IR in different parts of the world is not in fact that different: it is still state-centric, it talks about security in the way that most mainstream textbooks would talk about it, and IR courses are structured in such a way that you would be able to recognize in most parts of the world. Such surveys, therefore, tell us that IR works quite similarly in other parts of the world. Hence the need to look for difference in alternative sources and the need to look beyond IR—towards anthropology, sociology, linguistics, etc.—there is growing interest in conceptions of the international beyond what IR allows us. This is not confined to looking beyond the West, but is equally emerging in Western scholarship: there is now emerging literature on postsecularism and IR, and bringing religion back into the study of IR. However, I am not so much interested in studying differences (without underestimating the significance of such studies) but studying to our conversations, our communication, the give and take between us.
How did you arrive at where you currently are in IR?
My journey to this point has been through critical security studies. I studied international relations at Middle East Technical University in Ankara and did a Master's Degree Bilkent University in Ankara where I currently work. I was not entirely comfortable with IR as an undergraduate student, thought I could not quite put my finger on the reason why—though I was able to make sense of during my later studies. At the undergraduate level, I received an interdisciplinary training, not so much by design but rather by accident: I picked courses on political theory, economic history and political anthropology, simply because our curriculum allowed such a design. I was lucky to have interesting people teaching interesting courses. And again by sheer coincidence we had a visiting professor who introduced me to philosophy of science and the work of Thomas Kuhn and I began to question the standard IR training I had been receiving. So then I went on to an MA degree at Bilkent University which became consequential for me in two ways: for one, that University has the best IR library in Turkey, so there are no limits to what you can learn even when you are left to your own devices, and secondly, Hollis and Smith's Explaining and Understanding International Relations (1991) was on our reading list. So when I began reading that against the background of Thomas Kuhn, I began to make sense of IR in a very different way. Mind you, I was still not able to see my future in IR at that time.
Then I began writing my MA dissertation and was also working at Turkey's then very powerful semi-military institution the MGK, the National Security Council, at the General Secretariat: I was hired as a junior researcher and lasted for about four-and-a-half months, and then I went abroad for further studies, but those months were what set me on my path to Critical Security Studies. Working there, I began to appreciate the need for reflexivity, and the difficult role of the researcher, and the relationship between theory and practice. At that point I received a Chevening scholarship from the British Council, and the condition attached was that I could not use it towards PhD studies but had to use it for a one-year degree. I decided to study something that I could not study at home, and came across Ken Booth's work ('Security and Emancipation,' 1991) and knew of course Barry Buzan's oeuvre (Theory Talk #35), and found that Aberystwyth University offered a one-year degree in Strategic Studies, which is what I decided to do. That happened to be the first year they offered an Master's degree in Critical Security Studies, and I became one of the first five students to take that course, taught jointly by Ken Booth, Richard Wyn Jones and Nicholas Wheeler. Together with Steve Smith, who was Head of Department at the time, they were committed to giving us an excellent education, so it was a great place to be and I stayed on to do my PhD there as well. It's a small Welsh town with only 13,000 people and the University has about the same number of students. During that time I read important examples of critical IR scholarship, as well as the newly emerging literature on Security Studies, and it was around that time that Michael Williams (Theory Talk #39) joined the Department and he was a great influence on my work, as was of course my dissertation advisor Ken Booth: I learned a lot from him in terms of substance and style.
After receiving my PhD in the year 2000 I joined the IR department at Bilkent University as the only critical theorist there. Bilkent was at the time one of the few universities in Turkey committed to excellence in research—now there are more—and that allowed me the academic freedom to pursue my research interests in Critical Security Studies: I was able to focus on my work without having to spread out into other fields. It helped that I became part of research networks as well: I've already mentioned Arlene Tickner's and Ole Waever's work, their project on geocultural epistemologies in IR and 'Worlding beyong the West'. Ole Waever invited me to join, thus opening up my second research agenda since my PhD, enriched by workshops and conversations with scholars in the group. It is not far removed from my core work, but it is an added dimension. And this helped me over time to overcome my earlier doubts about IR, for I began to see just how multidisciplinary it was. It was only through Critical IR that I learned how parallel perspectives in other disciplines, and alternative ideas could be brought to bear on IR—something you also find nowadays in international political sociology or different aspects of anthropology in constructivism.
What would a student need to become a specialist in IR or understand the world in a global way?
In terms of skills, I think that studying at different institutions if possible, different settings with different academic traditions helps a lot. Institutions vary widely in their emphasis—Bilkent for instance believes that the best teachers are those who do cutting-edge research. Others may disagree and say that small teaching colleges are the best, because they pass on what they specialise in. I think therefore that studying at different institutions is very good for students, whether it be within formal exchange frameworks or acquiring fellowships for study away, not to mention of course fieldwork, which offers new settings: every new environment is an important learning experience, even if the substance is not so useful and what you learn is not necessarily so significant. Secondly, some would suggest learning a different language is important, along with acquiring a foothold in area studies and comparative studies, and I agree with that. Thirdly, Stefano Guzzini talks about IR theory being what a student needs in terms of disposition and skills: he has this piece in the Journal of International Relations and Development (2001), where he makes the case specifically for would-be diplomats in Central and Eastern European countries that by learning theory, students would be equipped to communicate across cultural boundaries—it's like learning a new language. They would learn to watch out against ethnocentrism, he argues, and this is one of the pieces I use when I teach IR theory. In this spirit, I think it important to use theory as a new language, as one of the tools that every student should have in their toolkit. And finally, I think I'd follow Cynthia Enloe's (Theory Talk #48) recommendation that it's useful to have a foot both in IR theory and in comparative studies. I feel that one without the other is less rewarding, though one will not know what one is missing until one goes to explore.
In my PhD work I focused on the Middle East, since then I have looked more in depth at Europe's relationship with the Euro-Mediterranean relations and Turkey-EU relations as empirical points of reference. This has been enriching and has benefited my research. In sum, it is essential to read as broadly as possible, and I give the same advice to my M.A. and to my PhD students. You can't read everything, and it can happen that the more we read the more confused we get, but in this Theory Talks is doing a great job by allowing students to learn from the experience of others. Learning happens also at conferences: you may find subjects that are of no interest to you, but that is helpful also, and on the other hand new subjects will broaden horizons. The wealth of cultural references in each part of the world can be baffling and may make it difficult to delve deep. The only way we make sense of the unknown through what we know.
What regional or perhaps even global protagonism can you envisage for IR studies emerging from Turkey? Turkey is often perceived to bridge Europe and the Middle East, Europe and Asia, but we have the problem that Asia itself is a Western idea, then a 'bridge' is in danger of belonging to neither.
As I made clear in what I said above, I don't think of IR in terms of contributions emerging from this part of the world or that part of the world. And although I grew up in Turkey and began my academic career there, I don't consider my own work to be in any way a 'Turkish perspective' on IR. What can be said to be Turkish about my perspective is that I have to travel to Aberystwyth and Copenhagen and all those ISA conference locations to discover that I can have (and some say I should) have a Turkish perspective. My undergraduate education was about learning IR as a 'universally undisputed'. I now know the limitations of that universalism, but I cannot offer a specifically located perspective, for it is a complicated picture that emerges in front of us. I am not in favour of replacing one parochialism with another one, in terms of those who speak of X School of IR versus Y School of IR.
Having said that, I consider that my contribution as being comfortable with what Orhan Pamuk has called the 'in-between world', though I prefer to use the term 'hybridity', not in-between-ness. That Turkish policy-makers have always claimed a bridge status for their country, but these ideas are rooted in Turkey's hybridity and belonging to multiple worlds (as opposed to being in between multiple worlds). Policy-makers can talk about being a bridge between Europe and Asia, or Europe and the Middle East, because Turkey in fact belongs to all these worlds. So in some ways being at ease with this hybridity does allow me to have a particular perspective in IR that I may not have had if I had come from a different background. But then again, it's difficult to know. I have taken courses in political anthropology, learning about the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey as an imagined community, but all my introductions to geocultural studies and epistemology came from Critical IR settings, so looking for geographically or culturally specific roots simply doesn't work. As Said put it, it is 'beginnings' that we should be looking for, not 'origins.'
When Europeans and North Americans speak of 'state building' and 'development', Turkey is often taken as a model example of conversion to Western models—largely by its own choice. Should Turkey's path and modern reality be understood differently?
I am not comfortable with the word 'model', but 'example' may be a preferable term. So what is Turkey an example of? That has become a particular research question for me and I have written on this—Turkey's choice to locate itself in the West and what that means. Turkey is interesting for having decided to locate itself in the West, and this is where language and culture come in the picture. More often than not, the literature tends to assume that elites in places like Turkey would make the decision to adopt the 'Western model', and the rationale for adopting that model is not questioned, but instead taken to be 'obvious' from development theory and its teleological outlook: 'it just happened'. It is those that do not adopt the dominant model, those that decide against Westernization, that need explaining. Perhaps I would not have asked myself that question, had I not—and here my biography comes into the picture—been puzzled by references to 'civilization' in Turkish texts. If you look into Turkish literature or historical documents you will find references to 'civilization' everywhere—the national anthem refers to civilization as a 'one-toothed monster called civilization'. As a young student, I just couldn't make sense of this and wondered why is everyone talking about civilization and why is it a good and a difficult thing at the same time?
I began to make sense of this as I was researching Turkey's choices about secularism in the late 19th and early 20th century, and was looking at some of those documents once again, but this time with insights provided by postcolonial IR. The language commonly used was 'joining' the West, and secularisation was a part of the package, but it was not necessarily a question of mere emulation but search for security, being a part of the 'international society'. These were not easy decisions, so here I look at Turkey's choice to locate itself in the West within the security context. There was a notion of a 'standard of civilization' in Europe and the West more broadly which others were expected to 'live up to', and this gives you some sense of the ubiquity of the references to civilization in the discourses of Turkish policy makers at the time. I am not suggesting that this is the whole answer, and I do not reject distinct answers, but I do think it helps understand Turkey's decision to locate itself in the West in the early 20th century. So this is where my security aspects of my work and Critical IR together. My starting point is to identify the ubiquity of one notion and then locate that within critical IR theory. Turkey becomes an example of postcolonial insecurities. Though never having been colonized it nonetheless exhibits those 'postcolonial anxieties' in Sankaran Krishna's words.
I am keenly aware of the reality that even when we as academics are doing our most theoretical and abstract work, we are never removed from the roles of the 'real world', for we are teachers at the same time: by the time we put our ideas to paper we have already disseminated them through our teaching. Some of us are more committed to teaching than others, of course, but some critical theorists see the most important part of their job as being good educators and training the new generation, as opposed to being more public intellectuals and writing op-ed pieces and talking to bigger audiences. We are therefore never far removed from the world of practice and from disseminating our ideas about security and international relations, because we are teachers, and some of our students will go on to work in the real world institutions, like government or the media.
Beyond that, there is a growing vitality in the literature on the privatisation of security: on private armies and how security is being privatised and fielded out to professionals. The new literature that is emerging on this is more and more interesting, I am thinking for instance of Anna Leander's work here: she talks about privatization of security not only in terms of the involvement of private professionals going off to do what government or other actors tell them to do, but also in terms of the setting up of security agendas and shaping security, determining what threats are, and determining what risks are and quite literally how we should be leading our lives. In this sense theory and critical security studies have become very real for all of us, because no one group of people owns the definitions.
Currently I am working on a manuscript that brings together two of my research interests, conceptions of the international beyond the West and Critical Security Studies. I use the case of Turkey for purposes of illustration but also for insight. I am trying to think of ways of studying security that are attentive to the periphery's conceptions of the international as a source of (non-material) insecurity.
Pınar Bilgin is the author of Regional Security in the Middle East: a Critical Perspective (Routledge, 2005) and over 50 papers. She is an Associate Member of the Turkish Academy of Sciences. She received the Young Scientists Incentive Award of the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TÜBITAK) in 2009 and 'Young Scientist' (GEBIP) award of Turkish Academy of Sciences (TÜBA, 2008). She served as the President of Central and East European International Studies Association (CEEISA), and chair of International Political Sociology Section of ISA. She is a Member of the Steering Committee of Standing Group on International Relations (SGIR) and an Associate Editor of International Political Sociology.
Related links
Faculty Profile at Bilkent University Read Bilgin's Thinking Past 'Western' IR? (2008) here (pdf) Read Bilgin's A Return to 'Civilisational Geopolitics' in the Mediterranean? Changing Geopolitical Images of the European Union and Turkey in the Post-Cold War Era (2004) here (pdf) Read Bilgin's Whose 'Middle East'? Geopolitical Inventions and Practices of Security (2004) here (pdf) Read Bilgin's and A.D. Morton's Historicising representations of 'Failed States': beyong the cold-war annexation of the social sciences? (2002) here (pdf)