Why No Support for Freedom of Speech?

September 17, 2012

Why?

There seems to be wide agreement that the vast majority of citizens of the countries in which anti-US protests are occurring at this time, objecting to the film (“Innocence of Muslims”), are of the strong opinion that such protests should stop, and most certainly that there is no justification whatsoever for violence being imposed on US and Western governmental and business entities.

Here's the harder question to find answers to: If this is true, then why do the leaders of those countries not speak out in opposition to such behavior and perhaps also defend the right of free speech which is core to the dilemma? Some, including the new President of Egypt have done the opposite—calling for the creator of the video to be prosecuted. He is smart enough to know that we cannot do that under our constitution and our rule of law. Nor would England or Germany, which are to some extent, also being targeted.

Can this be explained by simple reasoning? Is it that the leaders do not have a good feeling for the power (in numbers or politically or economically) of the fundamentalist minority? That doesn't seem likely.

Or, is it that they see only the noise of this minority, and hear nothing from the vast majority? After all, the vast majority does not take to the streets to preach moderation. This kind of influence can be seen in America, can it not? Let’s take the National Rifle Association. Reportedly, they only have 4.3 million members, and even if we multiply by 2 to guestimate their supporters or sympathizers, it’s still not a strong block, in numbers, in a country of more than 300 million. There must be many multiples of that number of citizens like me, who feel we should much more to limit the weapons permitted to citizens of the US. Yet, we do not take to the streets. We do not protest. We do not hire lobbyists. We are not organized. They are. And the capitalist entities which supply their weapons pay millions to lobbyists to protect their interests. Thus, we see even our President defer to this group in an election year. And, there is the fear that alienating a block which might represent even as little as 2% could swing the upcoming election.

On top of all that, if no other charismatic political leaders of any of the countries we are discussing, including Libya, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran, Egypt, Afghanistan, and others, if there is no leader in any of those countries who is calling publicly for reason, for understanding, for calm, no one to defend free speech, then what is the downside for a leader like Mohammed Morsi of Egypt, in calling for the prosecution of the creator of the video? Similarly, there is no one in US leadership of political importance at this time, who is calling for reduced availability of firearms.

And, the case we have cited here, the NRA, is by far the strongest of US lobbying interests, according to Congress. We know that far smaller fractions of special interest groups are also able to wield similar power, resulting in our leadership being unwilling to criticize. Why should we expect it to be different in a Muslim country?

There appears to be a dearth of leadership, worldwide, leaders who are willing to say the right thing and do the right thing. As we speak, Morsi is modifying his stance, perhaps largely due to pressure from the US (and Obama directly by phone to him). Is this the only weapon we have to influence the right behavior? Is the world so lost in the complex influence of politics that we cannot even mount leaders who will stand up for what they truly believe?

Let's hope not!

Libya and a Controversial Video

September 13, 2012

Someone, somewhere, sometimes described as an Israeli-American real estate developer from California (allegedly a "Sam Bacile"), makes a foolish decision, makes and releases a video that is insulting to members of the Muslim faith. The truth about who was behind the video has yet to be discovered. Motives are unknown, but one can only guess that whoever the producer is, he is a member of one of the many splinter groups around the world who do not wish to embrace the globalization of the world on a positive basis, seeking how we can understand and accept each other. Rather, such groups look for opportunities to exploit in the hope that they can hurt people of different faiths or can achieve some other end, or extract revenge, whether or not their target is indeed deserving of punishment.

Most Muslims will undoubtably shrug the video off as coming from someone foolish. Most will know that insensitive actions emanate from people of all faiths and nationalities, and that many of the citizens of the US no longer even regard their own country to be only Christian, but see it as also Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, Buddhist, and more. {That's not to imply, of course, that good Christians would wish to insult the Prophet Mohammad. They would not.} Most Muslims will know that this has nothing to do with the US Government or widely held attitudes.

Somehow, allegedly, the video went viral a year after it was produced, and an uprising at the American Embassy in Benghazi, Libya, on the 11th anniversary of 911, resulted in the death of our Ambassador Chris Stevens and several others. A tragic event, especially since Stevens, a career foreign service officer, is not known to have any negative views regarding the Islamic faith or its Prophet. An innocent victim. And, anyone who knows, understands that the broad mainstream of America does not support such things as this video, do not wish to insult the Muslim faith, and that most of us want to understand that great faith better and to respect its basic beliefs.

Questions swirl: Was the uprising and the attack an angry mob's excess, only that? Or, was it some other terrorist force (possibly allies of the late Qhaddafi), attempting to extract revenge against the US, although our intervention in Libya last year was completely a collaborative NATO initiative and was supported by countries of predominately Muslim faith?

What is the message for globalization in all this? Was globalization involved?

Globalization was involved. If not the rapidly growing interconnectedness of the world, we would not have had a consortium such as NATO to decide to overthrow Qhaddafi. If not for globalization, we might not know so much about Libya or care so much. If not for globalization, a fundamentalist preacher in Florida regarded to be supporting the film, might have turned his attention rather to the numerous atrocities inside the US, more local to his parish, such as gay marriage, inter-marriage, gambling, drinking, or whatever (too numerous to enumerate), rather than choosing to clamor over how the Islamic faith is endangering the world.

What is the message?

-Globalization will not always result in only good things, and most certainly not quickly.

- As Ed Husain (Center for Foreign Relations) explains, it's natural for people who have lived under dictatorship for decades to hold the feeling that governments control and are responsible for the actions of their citizens, when, in fact, this is not the nature of true democracy. Husain argues that heresy and blasphemy, as offensive as they are, are an allowed part of democratic societies.

-There will always be forces which seek to use any development to justify or incite, and with the benefits of enhanced globalization, they will have more opportunity to do so. Communication, technology, and transportation advances, all part of globalization, increase the opportunities for such harmful behaviors by a wide variety of splinter groups. One thing they do seem to have in common is a desire to turn back the clock to times when some of the forces of globalization were not bringing influences which they regard to be threatening to their beliefs.

-However, let us not underestimate the potentially beneficial impact of the backlash of reactions to such acts around the world. Millions of Muslims and Christians alike are already reacting to the killing of Stevens and colleagues with denunciation of such behavior. I think this serves to some extent to galvanize the "moderates" of the world in further isolating the extremists and their behavior. That's exactly the opposite of what the perpetrators hope for in such acts. It takes a lot to move the moderates of the world to take action. Terrorism is the weapon of extremists who represent small numbers of our world population and can only resort to such actions, being largely without resources. Little do they calculate that such actions are less likely to gain followers than to gain strength of opposition.

-Our Secretary of State described the video as essentially reprehensible, but also made clear that the US will never act to inhibit freedom of speech and expression.

Right and Wrong in Pakistan

September 4, 2012

Globalization certainly raises the question of whether there is indeed a universal "right and wrong?" When the world was more national, less global, there was less interference by one nation in the internal affairs of another nation. Now, we find that reasons for intruding, for caring to influence change in the internal affairs of another distant country can be for a variety of reasons: concerns that those internal affairs could somehow affect the business interests (e.g., energy supply) of our distant country; concerns that those affairs could result in war which might spillover to affect many other countries; and, concerns that the internal behaviors are simply "immoral" or wrong, in the opinion of us outsiders. This is seen to mean that we have a moral obligation to stop those behaviors, even if we have no authority to do so, and even if they do not appear in any way to threaten our way of life in our distant country.

If there is universal right, and if we know what those right principles are, universally, for all, then we certainly will wish to impose those upon people who are behaving otherwise. It stands to reason, that is a good thing for all, provided we do our best to impose those in the most humane way.

On the one hand, most educated liberals of the world would say there are certain universal truths--in fact, most of the world's major religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, as examples) would agree on many of them. The golden rule is one of them.

Is tolerance one of them? Is acceptance of the rights and freedom of others one of them?

Is the process of globalization going to force the beliefs of the powerful upon the less powerful? Will the less powerful have any ultimate alternatives other than to develop nuclear weapons or conduct terrorism, if, indeed, they believe their most sacred beliefs are not respected--and if they have been taught to believe that failure to believe as they do and adhere precisely to their beliefs is blasphemy against their God, as they know Him?

There are those of us who would say, tolerance is a universal truth, a universal right. That would mean that if someone wanted to burn the pages of my Bible in front of my Presbyterian church, because that person was an atheist and felt that there is no God, certainly no my God as Presbyterians see him, is not a good God or does not even exist. It would mean that unless he was creating a disturbance which inconvenienced others, I should walk right by on my way in, and on my way out, and never seek to disturb his rights. I wouldn't like it, but he has his right to his beliefs.

It seems tolerance is not yet universally agreed as one of the great truths of mankind. There is too much fear for loss of the seemingly sacred nature of "my" personal rituals.

We are not yet ready, as a world, to believe that all our "Gods" are ultimately the same God. That it is only our rituals which differ, and these can well serve our needs for history and tradition and individuality. These rituals need not be the same. In fact, we can study, respect, and appreciate the rituals of others.

Another day, let's talk about the rituals of certain religions--can they be allowed to retain all of them, even if they do not choose to threaten believers in other religions....? E.g., is my religion to be tolerated to punish those who do not obey its prime commandments in harsh ways, just as I see fit?

Religious Issues in Globalization

September 2, 2012

Perhaps 30 years ago, the case of a 14 year old learning handicapped Christian girl being accused of burning the Koran in Pakistan would not make it to the papers in the US or London. If it did, perhaps most people would not feel we have any right to judge or to interfere.

But we have this thing called globalisation, which has instantaneously delivered this news to every major city in the world. Along with the news comes a plethora of observations by foreign notables. This is a dramatic example of issues exacerbated by globalisation.

The young girl is in jail, awaiting trial, the penalty for conviction potentially being death. And, even if she is released, local press report that her life will be in danger in Pakistan, notwithstanding that there are strong allegations that a Muslim cleric, arrested today, was seen planting burned pages of the Koran into her belongings.

These comments are not intended to address the right and wrong of this situation. It's clear that most all of us Christians and many of other religions in the West are of the opinion that this young woman should not be arrested. While it is not morally OK in the west to burn our religious books, it is not illegal. There might be a few extremists who would endanger one who did so, but such threats or endangerment would not be tolerated in most Western societies.

However, in Pakistan, it seems there is a very vocal and significant group of citizens who feel strongly that destroying the Koran is a sin so very grievous that anyone doing so should face death. Have we ever had such types of beliefs in Western societies? Yes, of course, we have, probably some such sensitivities and/or laws dating back only 2-300 years. Would it have occurred to those conducting the Salem witch trials in 1693 that people of a different mind on this from other countries should have a right to opine or to interfere? Of course not.

It is clear that today, 2012, we have instant knowledge transfer of news like this, and we have strong feelings in countries very foreign to Pakistan, with no clear authority or rights to influence human rights (or religious freedom, as some of those extremely dedicated Muslims might call it--those who see the burning of their religious book as a mortal sin), feelings that say "No!" "This is wrong." "Stop, release this young woman, and by the way, change your laws to give people the same freedoms of religion (choices, practices, all of it) that we have in the West!"

I admit to being of this opinion. Most everyone I know would probably agree. Nevertheless, herein we see a vivid example of the process of globalization. What right do the people of my nation state have in judging and trying to control the attitudes, religious preferences, and laws of another distant nation state? There is no IGO with overriding rules covering this aspect of human behavior. There are no rules, no authorities, nothing other than publicity and moral suasion available to the objectors to enable them to force the will of the majority of developed Western nations upon those of a different persuasion!

We will soon know the outcome of this particular extraordinarily sensitive matter.

As to globalisation, one thing we can say is that it's unstoppable, permeating into all aspects of life, worldwide. Notwithstanding the absence of authorities, rules or agreements, whatever weapons that can be found will be used to influence. It doesn't mean that the opinions of developed countries will always prevail, but it does mean that the time of quiet enjoyment of your own local traditions is gone, likely never to return!

London Approaching

July 22, 2012

We are now within weeks of departing San Francisco for London, where I will enter the Masters program at the School of Oriental and African Studies in the subject: Globalisation and Development. In anticipation of the program, I have read a number of the better recommended books on the subject of globalisation. These readings and reflections have changed my preconceived views on the subject--already--and I haven't even begun the course yet.

I suppose the overview is that I have been moved to a more complex understanding and a realization that the free market alone (unmanaged globalisation) will not best benefit the world. Of course, if we had only one choice--globalisation or no globalisation, then we should definitely be in favor of continued globalisation. It has brought hundreds of millions out of poverty in China, India, and elsewhere in the world, not to mention all the benefits to those not impoverished. And, we certainly do not have the choice of not having globalization anyway, because it is a powerful force driven by wealth creation opportunities of a massive nature.

Yes, we'd be far worse off without it.

Fortunately, we don't have this choice to make. We don't have the opportunity to choose not to have globalisation, although there are certainly many movements toward protectionism all over the developed world. For the most these are disparate and fragmented initiatives on behalf of industry groups in various developed nations, pursued by well funded lobbyists and presented to sympathetic members of government who are sensitive to the influence (monetary and political) of the industries and companies funding lobbying for those benefits. They usually manage to eventually end up persuading trade conference representatives of their countries to support manufactured and distorted selfish arguments to serve only their best interests, with no eye toward the better good of all on a worldwide basis. And, if fact, these efforts often do not even benefit the greater good of the country making such arguments, as in the case of US agricultural subsidies to cotton producers, resulting in higher than average incomes for those 25,000 cotton farmers in the US, and higher costs of cotton to US consumers, higher taxes to US taxpayers, and continued poverty for Sub Saharan Africans who could produce cotton well below our costs in the US. There are thousands of other such narrow and selfish legal and trade advantages throughout this country and the rest of the developed world.

But, these are not going to prevent the continuation of the grand worldwide expansion of globalisation, because there is a lot of money to be made from globalisation and therefore a lot of momentum behind it.

So, we need to understand that our opportunity is to try to make it work for more people, not just for the wealthy 1% of the world and not just for the developed nations. It needs to work for the underprivileged of the world as well, and especially for the impoverished of the world.

Why, some might argue, should we concern ourselves about those people--the ones in countries so far from us that we have no connection with them, no understanding of them, and we can't be certain they're not of some persuasion that is in fact, determined to do us in, if only they get the chance? And, don't we have enough problems just concerning ourselves with our country, and defending only our citizens against any losses to citizens of other countries?

There are three main reasons we need to concern ourselves with those who are not benefitting from globalization: (1) we have a moral obligation; (2) if we don't, we may thereby contribute to the unrest of the world, and to the hatred of the haves, and this could well engender a degree of terrorism and war risk that is dangerous to us; (3) the greatest long term wealth and lifestyle benefits of globalisation are going to be realized through helping the rest of the developing world rise to a level of income, such as to enable them to buy our products and makes us wealthier too. It's not a zero sum game--improved opportunity, income, and wealth for the underprivileged does not result in less for the advantaged. In the long term, it means more for all.

Partisan Interpretation of Facts and Reality

June 10, 2012

Just now, June 10, 2012, I am watching C Span, which is broadcasting the House Budget Committee, chaired by Paul Ryan. Douglas Elemendorf, who is Director of the Congressional Budget Office, is giving testimony. I missed his opening remarks and caught the Q&A. I was struck by, and very irritated to see, in action, what we all feel has become the nature of our Congress--partisan politics. I will pick on Bill Flores, R-TX, who was so very clearly attempting to force Elemendorf to admit that the stimulus program did not work, and thus any further stimulus would not work. Elemendorf was very clear--it did work, but the weakness of the underlying economy during this period of unusual crisis, such as the US has not experienced since the Great Depression, has caused the impact of the stimulus to be less than we had hoped. Flores is so clearly "partisan" in his attitude and his questions (really statements of his opinion). James Lankford, R-OK, spoke with far less in the way of bias to his party's position. But the preponderance of speakers were clearly biased--not open to better understanding Elemendorf''s analysis, but rather, trying to disprove his conclusions and embarrass him

Partisanship was so clearly evident and must be so easy to see if one watches such hearings on C Span. Why don't we Americans watch and why don't we rise up and denounce and throw out the representatives who so very clearly display resistance to accept facts and realistic analysis, such as that supplied (in my opinion) by such as Elemendorf and his staff?

If we just watch, we can each so easily see how we are being failed by the clearly visible positioning of our elected representatives, how they become more and more entrenched in their positions.

Partisanship was not limited to Republican representatives. Democrats also displayed the full range, one to another, of reasonableness and extreme entrenchment in liberal ideology. However, there has been considerable bi-partisan scholarly recognition that the right wing Republican camp (most of the party now) has been by far the greater offender. I wonder how many Americans know the name Grover Norquist? Do we Americans recognize that somehow he managed to persuade almost all Republican members of Congress to sign a pledge that essentially removes all elements of revenue increase (via taxes), only leaving the still debated principle of using tax reductions to stimulate growth. Either that, or somehow stimulating growth by reducing entitlements via the avenue of reducing debt and following that logic to some connection to growth. This is a pledge not to listen, not to be open minded, a pledge to be resolutely partisan and refuse any possible compromise.

The essence of this debate is around spending vs. taxing; whether there is any way to reduce the budget deficit and the debt burden without making painful cuts in entitlements; whether there is any magic to be found in tax code restructuring such as to stimulate growth.

How have we ended up in this stalemate, which can only make the situation worse, and which we tolerate continuing month to month and year to year in taking no action?

I imagine most thoughtful Democrats recognize that entitlements must be reduced. And, our military budget exceeds the total of the defense budgets of at least the next 14 countries combined (Fareed Zakaria). All of this will need to be reduced. And, there is value to the arguments that tax cuts can potentially increase growth and thus reduce employment--but just right now, there should be little disagreement that careful spending choices on such as infrastructure and education will help to grow us out of the hole we are in.

Why can't we compromise and move forward?

Sweatshops and Activists

June 3, 2012

Sweatshops and the Issues

It seems likely that any thoughtful and studied person, examining the logic and the reality of experience, would conclude that, in general, globalization is good for the poor of the world. There are significant nooks and crannies of exception, but in a broad and general sense, it is well understood that more than a billion of the world’s population has risen from poverty across the last two decades, largely as a result of the growth of their respective national economies and that growth is largely the result of enhanced and accelerated globalization.

So, that being so undeniably true, why do the activists continue to rail against globalization and why do many look for ways to stop it?

One might ask a few questions to better understand this continuing and growing phenomenon: Do they deny that the above is true? Do they feel that while it is true, it is still appropriate to protest—they want more? If they want more, then who is best to protest against?

Let's use an example: If Walmart and Apple are perhaps paying above local custom and local law in their foreign manufacturing and satisfied that is the case in regard to the vendors they buy from in foreign countries, and if they are not engaging in employment behaviors which are abusive or contrary to local law or custom, then who is to be protested against? What do the protesters want?

It appears that the protesters want to see the employment in the foreign country adopt a set of compensation and management practices which are “foreign” to the foreign country. They have some kind of ideal employment situation in mind. Maybe it’s the best of the US employment situations, or it’s some modified version. It's usually not clear exactly what standard they are "exporting" to the foreign country.

Suppose it is common in China for employees to make 100 RMB per day. That’s only about $16 at today’s exchange rates, while here in San Francisco, minimum wage exceeds $10 per hour. Suppose it is common for factory workers in China to work 6 days per week, 10 hours per day (60 hours per week), whereas in the US it is common to work only 40 hours per week.

Further, let’s suppose the factory offers housing and food to its employees in China, many or whom elect to take this offer, because it is cheaper for them to take the factory housing and food than to rent and pay for food on the outside. Suppose the housing and food cost 50% of the gross pay, and thus the net available to the employee is then only 50 RMB ($8 per day).

Many of the factory workers in China are migrants from the countryside, having moved to the city just to work in the factory. Let's assume they have access to competitive information, a variety of factory jobs for which they could apply, and that they are capable of basic analysis. They can calculate what the factory job will mean in net income, vs. what they could earn in agriculture in the countryside. They have friends or relatives already working there. So, they anticipate that the $8/day is better than what they could earn in agricultural work in the countryside. They think they can send most of $48/ week back to their families in the countryside.

What is wrong with this picture? The migrant factory worker has improved his/her income and life style as a result of the employment offered, and that is as a result of growth and globalization. What is there to protest about? The workers have bettered themselves. They had choices and they chose this job. No one forced them to take these jobs. No one is locking the factory premises and forcing them to stay if they want to leave.

Still, it appears there are numerous protesters who do not accept this reality. Maybe to them, $48/week is horrendously unfair. Maybe they have in mind some far higher wage, closer to US wages. They think working 10 hours per day, 6 days a week, is a “sweatshop,” and they do not choose to acknowledge that if it is, then the work in the countryside, which might be 12 hours per day for 7 days per week, for less money, with far worse housing and food—that’s NOT a sweatshop…?

Let’s skip the process of protesting and who can be effectively protested against to change this seemingly beneficial and fair reality, for a moment, and assume the protesting is successful. Foir whatever reasons Apple moves its production and Walmart drops those vendors. Then, no one can dispute that those same factory jobs might well move to Bangladesh or Angola, and the protestors can start all over again. And, regardless of whether they move or not, the cost of goods to buyers throughout the world increases. When prices increase, as economists attest, there is reduced demand (price/demand elasticity affects most factory produced products). Thus, there is need for fewer factory jobs and fewer poverty stricken migrants from the countryside are able to start the process of climbing out of poverty.

No one disputes that the improved condition of these migrant workers are still difficult. They do not have enough money to hire child care workers back home. They must rely on relatives to care for their children. They do not themselves have access to the best schools where they work, because of China’s “houkou” laws which discriminate between locals and migrants in terms of many benefits. They can’t afford vacations, best health care, much entertainment, and things we all take for granted. So, by US standards, they would be considered in the bottom 20%, not far from homeless. No one disputes that.

Nevertheless, using our assumptions, they have choice, have made their choice, have improved their standard of living and are being compensated and treated in accordance with local custom in their country and in compliance with all local law. In fact, most multinationals are thought to pay wages that are 10-40% above local standards and thus, they are pulling wages up in the country—for two reasons: They pay more and their added demand for labor contributes to pressures that increase wages in the country.

No one disputes that there are situations which do not fit these assumptions, where muti-nationals are violating local laws or dealing with employees in abusive ways. These deserve protest and change, but it would be wonderful if we could reach agreement on how to deal with those which do fit these assumptions, because I think these are the majority and it seems a very significant amount of disagreement and energy is invested in trying to “fix” these, also.

So, back to the question of protesting. Notwithstanding the arguments above, protesting continues. Against whom? Is it right that the activists should protest Walmart and Apple? They are entirely in compliance with local law and custom (our assumption), even where some locals are not, simply because local law is not very well enforced. This is happening. Is it right that they protest the World Bank and the IMF when the multi-nationals are in compliance with the agreements of these organizations? It would seem not, unless the protest is aimed at changing those agreements. Why shouldn’t the protests be against the local country, where the minimum wage laws are determined, the length of the allowable work week, etc?

Why? Apparently because it is extraordinarily difficult for protesters in wealthy nations to effectively protest the Chinese (or any foreign) government. It’s so much easier to try to protest world organizations and the multinational. Mounting publicity which highlights the dramatized difficult lives of the migrant factory workers is not hard, and is so poignant when properly displayed in the wealthy developed country, especially when there exists a host of varied motivations to attach to any potentially significant effort to slow globalization, punish the Chinese, or effect a wealth transfer.

Finally, how many of the protesters would vote for increased tax in the country in which they live, which could be distributed to those workers who are underpaid—something coming from their individual paychecks? Doubtful many would. Who do they want to pay for the improved conditions of the migrant factory worker? Bill Gates? The US Government? If the US, who will pay that bill in the end? They want the "wealthy" multi-national corporation to pay the bill, thus reducing its profits, reducing the taxes it pays, reducing its competitiveness against other muti-nationals from Japan or elsewhere? In the end, doesn't someone pay for this wealth transfer? Shouldn't we address who that should be at first, and make sure it is fair on a global basis?