Migration and Human Rights (45): Open Borders, Luck Egalitarianism, and the Common Ownership of the Earth

[This post originally appeared on Openborders.info as a guest post.] 

Luck egalitarianism is a school of thought in moral philosophy that argues in favor of interventions in people’s lives aimed at eliminating as far as possible the impact of luck. If you have the bad luck of being born into a poor family, your prospects in life should not be harmed by this and society should intervene in order to correct for it.

I’m not going to endorse luck egalitarianism because it’s a theory that suffers from some serious defects. However, the basic intuition seems sound to me and can be used to argue against immigration restrictions. Your country of birth is also a matter of luck, good luck or bad luck, depending on the country. It’s either good luck or bad luck because the place where you are born has a profound impact on your life prospects. The mere fact of having been born in Bolivia rather than the U.S. makes it statistically more likely that you will be poor, uneducated and unhealthy. Since no one chooses to be born somewhere, no one can be said to deserve the advantages or disadvantages that come with being born somewhere.

Hence, if Americans for example are just lucky to have been born in the U.S. and didn’t do anything to deserve being born there, what right do they have closing their borders and allowing access only to a chosen few selected according to criteria that they have unilaterally decided and that mainly serve their own interests? None whatsoever. In claiming that right they make it impossible for others to do something about the misfortune of having been born in a poor country. Hence, they double other people’s disadvantage.

As Joseph Carens has put it, immigration restrictions are the modern equivalent of feudal privilege, inherited status, birthrights and class rule. In our current, so-called modern and Enlightened societies, the good luck of being born in a wealthy country supposedly gives you the right to exclude others, just as in the olden days the fact of having been born in the class of nobles or aristocrats gave you the right to condemn others to the class of paupers. The lottery of birth yields unfair advantages in both cases.

One may claim that none of this necessarily argues in favor of open borders. The fortunate of this earth could compensate for their good luck by other means. For example, they could have a duty, not to open their borders, but to transfer money and resources to those who have had the bad luck of being born in the wrong country.

Obviously, assistance is a moral duty, but I fail to see how the fulfillment of this duty could grant you the right to close your borders. Those who argue that assistance is enough often use a domestic analogy. Consider Hugh Hefner, for example. The point is not that he probably wouldn’t have had the wealth he has now if he hadn’t been born in a country (or granted access to a country) where the average citizen is wealthy enough to spend large amounts of money on soft porn. The point is that there are millions of other people in the U.S. who, through no fault of their own, are burdened with bad luck, a lack of talent or a lack of education opportunities making it difficult or impossible for them to collect a Hefnerian amount of wealth, or even just a fraction of it. These people don’t deserve their lack of talent etc., just as poor Zimbabweans don’t deserve to have been born in Zimbabwe. Should Hefner therefore open the doors of Playboy Mansion? Or is it enough that he pays taxes to fund the welfare state? Most would choose the latter option.

What’s the difference between this domestic situation and the international one? If Hefner doesn’t have to welcome thousands of unfortunate U.S. citizens to his Playboy Mansion, why should the whole of the U.S. citizenry have to welcome millions of immigrants onto their territory? Well, because it’s not their territory, at least not in the way Playboy Mansion is Hefner’s property. People don’t have property rights to a part of the surface of the earth like they may have property rights to things. I have a long argument here in favor of the common ownership of the earth, and I invite you to click the link and read it. It’s too long to repeat it here, but suffice it to say that it leads to a strong presumption in favor of open borders without destroying the possibility of having borders and states in the first place.

More on open borders here.

Human Rights Ads (72): The Power of Pencils

Reporters Without Borders "Power of pencils" campaign featuring Robert Mugabe

(source, where you can find some variations)

If only this were true. An interesting although completely unrelated story about Mugabe and balloons is here. And this is a weird variation on the pencil theme:

The power of pencils … to erase the police??

More about Mugabe and Zimbabwe, and about press freedom. More human rights ads.

The Most Absurd Human Rights Violations (97): Free Speech in Zimbabwe

Robert Mugabe as a young man, photo by JP Laffont / Sygma / Corbis

(source)

Richmore Mashinga Jazi, a self-employed carpenter, was watching live coverage of Mugabe’s birthday bash last Friday while drinking with friends when he allegedly suggested that the 88-year-old president had sought help to blow up the balloons. …

“Who helped Mugabe blow up his birthday balloons, does he still have the energy?” is the statement that got Mugabe’s loyalists mad, resulting in the arrest of Jazi.

Jazi is now before the Mutare magistrates court on allegations of undermining the authority of the President. …

Mutare prosecutor Truman Joma … told the court that Jazi made the statement knowing that there was real risk or possibility that the statement was false and that it could cause hatred or contempt of the person of the President.

He alleged that Jazi was mocking and insulting the President by referring to his age and health. Trouble for Jazi started when he asked where prominent Mutare resident Penjeni Gwinyai, who had just entered into the bar, was coming from.

Gwinyai, the state alleged, informed Jazi that he had been at Sakubva stadium to witness Mugabe blow up his birthday balloons, prompting Jazi to query if Mugabe still had the energy to do so. Gwinyai informed the police leading to Jazi’s arrest. (source)

More on Mugabe and Zimbabwe. More absurd human rights violations.

Related articles

• Zimbabwe Carpenter Arrested Over Balloon Comment (abcnews.go.com)
• Mugabe blows £600,000 on birthday party (independent.co.uk)

Human Rights Ads (65): Throwing Pies at Dictators

(source, source)

More on Mugabe, Zimbabwe, Ahmadinejad, Iran, Kim Jong Il, and Korea. More on pie throwing. More human rights ads.

The Causes of Poverty (44): Bad Institutions

(source)

Botswana is a largely tropical, land-locked country with insignificant agriculture in a geo-politically precarious location. When the British granted independence, they left 12 km of roads and a poor educational system. Making headlines for its devastatingly high HIV rate, Botswana suffers from high inequality and unemployment. Officially a democracy, it has yet to have a functioning opposition party. 40% of Botswana’s output is from the diamond industry, a condition that in other countries casts the resource-curse.

Zimbabwe and Botswana GDP per capita

Still, Botswana is a growth miracle. Between 1965 and 1998, it had an average annual growth rate of 7.7%, and in 1998 it had an average per capita income four times the African average. Rule of law, property rights, and enforcement of contracts work; the government is efficient, small, and relatively free from corruption. Indigenous institutions, persisting through colonization, encourage broad-based participation, placing constraints on elites. Institutional quality and good policies are responsible for success against the odds. (source)

Of course, high GDP growth rates don’t always imply low poverty rates, but often they do. About a third of the population still lives in poverty, but this rate has been declining sharply, from 59% in 1985 and 47% in 1992 (source).

(image source)

More posts in this series are here.

The Most Absurd Human Rights Violations (72): Political Rights in Zimbabwe

Nearly a third of Zimbabwe’s 5.5m registered voters are dead, research has found. Others appear to be up to 120 years old, improbably outstripping the country’s average life expectancy of 43.

The independent Zimbabwe Election Support Network (ZESN) said the country’s electoral roll was a “shambles” and should be overhauled before fresh elections, which could be held this year.

A new electoral register is a key demand of the Movement for Democratic Change , which has accused President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu-PF party of counting “ghost voters” in its own favour. (source)

If you’re unclear about democratic rights as human rights, go here. More about Zimbabwe here. More absurd human rights violations here.

Related Articles

• The Most Absurd Human Rights Violations (64): The Commodification of Albinos (filipspagnoli.wordpress.com)
• The Most Absurd Human Rights Violations (67): Shot in the Butt Over Saggy Pants (filipspagnoli.wordpress.com)
• The Most Absurd Human Rights Violations (68): Advocacy Equals Insanity (filipspagnoli.wordpress.com)
• The Most Absurd Human Rights Violations (71): Arrested for Having a Suspicious Bagel on a Plane (filipspagnoli.wordpress.com)

Self-Defeating Human Rights Policies (5): Land Reform

Farmers protesting for Land Reform in Indonesia

Intuitively, if poor people don’t have land of their own and are forced to work for a few major landowners who have monopolized all the fertile land in the country, there’s a bargaining problem: poor people have no other options and because they are so numerous they can be played out against each other by the landowners. Wages tend to remain low in such a scenario (supply and demand, remember). That’s a recipe for a very unequal society. So the intuitive case for land reform is strong, especially when you consider that equality in land ownership isn’t just a matter of fairness but is also good for economic growth:

(source)

On the other hand, some notable attempts have gone horribly awry. I’ve mentioned before how land reform policies in Zimbabwe – supposedly implemented for the benefit of the poor but probably for other reasons – have made things even worse for the poor. Why? Cutting up large chunks of land and giving a lot of poor people a very small piece can undo economies of scale. Furthermore, expropriating large landowners forces them out of business, and a lot of know-how will be lost.

land reform cartoon by Rogelio Naranjo

(source, source, source)

So, what’s the deal? I guess it all depends on how land reform is done. Things don’t have to turn ugly. Land reform doesn’t have to be counter-productive. Property rights in general, and more specifically property of land in poor agrarian countries, are very important for the poor, as I’ve argued previously.

It is sometimes implied that improving property rights primarily favors the rich, conjuring up the image of rich owners of capital securing greater rents. However, there is increasing evidence that secure land rights, in particular, are an important vehicle for the poor that may promote both equity and efficiency. Lin…, for example, showed that the move from collective to household farming in China starting in 1978 led to large productivity increases in agriculture. …

Obtaining property rights over land in urban areas can also help poor households to gain access to credit. (source)

More on counter-productive human rights policies here.

Related Articles

• Kenya votes in favour of reform (bbc.co.uk)
• Movie Review | ‘Mugabe and the White African’: Farmer Who Fought Zimbabwe Land Reforms (movies.nytimes.com)
• Beverly Bell: “For a Better Life for the Peasants”: Food Sovereignty and Land Reform in Haiti (Part II) (huffingtonpost.com)
• Farmer takes on despot in compelling documentary “Mugabe” (reuters.com)
• Bolivia court upholds seizure of US man’s ranch (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Hacienda Luisita farmers want ‘justice’ not ‘preferential treatment’ (newsinfo.inquirer.net)
• Zimbabwe: From breadbasket to basket case (thestar.com)

Self-Defeating Human Rights Policies (3): Land Seizure in Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe, like many other developing countries with a history of minority white rule, also has a long history of land reform. Since 1979, the government has tried to redistribute land between the historically disenfranchised blacks and the minority-whites who ruled Zimbabwe from 1890 to 1979. A laudable and necessary initiative. During the last decades, however, white farmers have become a persecuted minority, losing their farms in an often violent manner. Most farmland has effectively been nationalized. The results have been disastrous for the economy of Zimbabwe.

Prior to land redistribution, land-owning farmers, mostly white, had large tracts of land and utilized economies of scale to raise capital, borrow money when necessary, and purchase modern mechanised farm equipment to increase productivity on their land. As the primary beneficiaries of the land reform were members of the Government and their families, despite the fact that most had no experience in running a farm, the drop in total farm output has been tremendous. … a country once so rich in agricultural produce that it was dubbed the “bread basket” of Southern Africa, is now struggling to feed its own population. A staggering 45 percent of the population is considered malnourished. (source)

Here are two satellite pictures from Google Earth that show the result:

(source, click images to enlarge)

Take a look at the Before picture. The communal land on the left is dry, dusty and unproductive compared to the private farmland on the right which is green and dotted with blue ponds and lakes. Why? There were two theories to explain this difference:

• The tragedy of the commons – the farmers on the communal lands did not have the incentives to invest in the land and thus the land eroded and turned to desert.
• The land on the right (which was owned mostly by whites) was better quality land.

Both theories could be true. Regarding the latter explanation, however, notice that the dry communal lands on the left are sharply delineated from the green private farms on the right–so sharply that soil quality and rainfall alone are unlikely to explain the difference. … After reform the land quality worsened everywhere. In particular, note that the blue lakes and ponds on the right became dry and empty… [T]he sharply delineated lines in the photos dividing communal and privately owned land is real … communal farmland is not as well managed as white-owned private land. (source)

All this with the caveat that satellite images aren’t always reliable (coloring, resolution etc. can vary, and are very important in this example).

Land reform in Zimbabwe is an example of a self-defeating human rights policy (to the extent that it was indeed a human rights policy and not plain nepotism): the government presumably tried to end poverty and inequality and has in fact made things worse. More on the importance of private property rights is here. More posts on satellite evidence of human rights violations are here. More on self-defeating human rights policies here.

Human Rights Ads (35): Band of Dictators

(source)

More on Korea, Zimbabwe and Myanmar (aka Burma). More human rights ads.

Political Graffiti (43b): Zimbabwe’s Inflation Turns Money Into Wallpaper

(source)

More on Zimbabwe.

Satellite Evidence of Human Rights Violations (1): Darfur and Zimbabwe

Modern technology has provided some interesting tools to detect and combat human rights violations. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) uses satellite imagery in its Geospatial Technologies and Human Rights Project.

Here are some examples. When you look at these two satellite photos of a small village in the Darfur region of Sudan, taken in March 2003 and in December 2006, you can clearly see the destruction that has taken place:

(source)

The pictures below are of the settlement of Porta Farm, located just west of Harare, Zimbabwe. The settlement has been leveled by Mugabe, in what he called a sanitary operation to clean a “slum” (he called it “Operation Murambatsvina“, or “Operation Drive Out Trash”), but undoubtedly the real purpose was to hurt the opposition.

(source)

Human Rights and International Law (9): Impunity

Luis Moreno-Ocampo

(source)

I deeply hope that the horrors humanity has suffered during the 20th century will serve us as a painful lesson, and that the creation of the International Criminal Court will help us to prevent those atrocities from being repeated in the future. Statement made by Luis Moreno-Ocampo on the occasion of his election as first Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court by the Assembly of States Parties in New York on 22 April 2003.

Many gross violations of rights such as genocides, state oppression, torture etc. are committed by the political class of a country, and in particular by the political leaders. And if they don’t personally dirty their hands, they organize, order, facilitate and protect the executors. They view rights violations as a necessary element in the exercise of power.

For many reasons, legal and practical, these leaders often enjoy impunity, meaning literally “without punishment”. The “Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights Through Action to Combat Impunity” describes impunity in this way:

The impossibility, de jure or de facto, of bringing the perpetrators of violations to account – whether in criminal, civil, administrative or disciplinary proceedings – since they are not subject to any inquiry that might lead to their being accused, arrested, tried and, if found guilty, sentenced to appropriate penalties, and to making reparations to their victims. (source)

Reasons for impunity

Here are some of these reasons for impunity:

1. Self-Preservation

(source)

A first reason for impunity is the fact that the perpetrators are in power and have subjected the justice system and the judiciary to their command. They have, in other words, destroyed the division of powers or failed to institutionalize it. Because they are so powerful, most of them die in the saddle and only have to fear a Higher Judge.

But some do not and end their reign (or see it ended) during their lifetime. But even then they manage to protect themselves. If they still have enough influence to stay in the country, they can either negotiate immunity or amnesty (take the case of Pinochet), or they have enough friends in high places to dispense with such formalities (take Deng Xiaoping, the butcher of Tienanmen).

2. The solidarity of tyrants

Milosevic and Karadzic

(source)

If their exit from power is somewhat acrimonious, they may have to flee to another country where a friendly dictator will do everything to avoid a precedent of justice and will harbor the criminal until the end of his days (take Karadzic). How beautiful solidarity can be.

3. The law

Donald Rumsfeld

(source)

Sometimes the national justice system can’t help, and at other times the international solidarity of tyrants hinders an otherwise able and willing justice system. Also the law can come to the rescue. State functionaries (sometimes even former functionaries) claim to enjoy legal immunity in national or even international law for acts carried out while in office. Individual perpetrators hide behind their states. Heads of state or leading functionaries are said to represent their states and all their actions are “acts of state”, and therefore the state is responsible for these acts.

Lower ranking officials are not responsible either, because they can hide behind the “Befehl ist Befehl” principle. They cannot be punished because they follow orders from people who themselves are not responsible either.

Only by transcending these principles of immunity and command can individuals be punished for violations of human rights and can human rights be protected (punishing states is very difficult and is not fair because it is a kind of collective punishment.) This has been the main achievement of the Nuremberg Tribunal. The Nuremberg tribunal was the first tribunal to judge the crimes of political leaders and to refuse to grant them immunity for war crimes and gross violations of human rights such as the holocaust. The charter of the fledgling International Criminal Court (ICC) also rules out defenses based on immunity:

Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person. (source)

Charles Taylor of Liberia was indicted in 2003 while still in power, and is now in the dock in The Hague. Milosevic went before him and others will follow. But they have to be extradited. Political leaders will not extradite themselves, and after they leave office they will continue to enjoy some protection at home. Taylor was arrested because he first agreed to accept exile in Nigeria.

Moreover, countries have to sign up to the ICC treaty. Zimbabwe for example has not signed up, so Mugabe will not have his day in court, unless there is a referral to the court by the Security Council. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir is now indicted on charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes over the slaughter in Darfur, but will probably remain comfortably in his seat.

Some claim that the possibility of being handed over to the ICC after the end of their reign, forces tyrants to cling to power and use ever more violent means to do so. But then you could as well grant amnesty to all hostage takers out of fear that they would otherwise do more harm to their hostages.

(source)

4. Institutional problems

The impunity of ordinary civil servants or members of the police is often the consequence of under-developed state institutions. Judiciaries that are malfunctioning or corrupt, policemen who are underpaid or have a lack of training etc.

Impunity arises from a failure by States to meet their obligations to investigate violations; to take appropriate measures in respect of the perpetrators, particularly in the area of justice, by ensuring that those suspected of criminal responsibility are prosecuted, tried and duly punished; to provide victims with effective remedies and to ensure that they receive reparation for the injuries suffered; to ensure the inalienable right to know the truth about violations; and to take other necessary steps to prevent a recurrence of violations. (source)

Data

The Committee to Protect Journalists has an impunity index in which countries are ranked according to the number of murder of journalists that are unresolved. More statistics are here.

Here’s a post on the related subject of universal jurisdiction.

More on justice for dictators.

Migration and Human Rights (6): Xenophobia

Art by David Lachapelle

(source)

Definition

Xenophobia, the contempt or fear of strangers or foreign people, often people of a different race or ethnic group, is not considered to be a disease like other “phobias”. It is part of a political struggle against adversaries, much like racism is. (Whereas racism is certainly xenophobic, xenophobia doesn’t have to be racist; it can be directed against groups which are not racially different from the xenophobes).

Xenophobia often takes places within a society rather than between societies. A group present within a society is not considered a legitimate part of that society and has to be expelled or assimilated in order not to corrupt or damage the interests of the rest of society. Hence the link to ethnic cleansing or genocide.

Causes of xenophobia

• Ethnically-based nationalism (e.g. xenophobia in the Balkan countries)
• Migration, although xenophobia may be directed against a group which has been present for centuries, or against very small numbers of immigrants or foreigners (e.g. Japan in the 19th century)
• Perceived threats to culture or national identity
• Religious doctrine (e.g. the attitude of some Muslims towards unbelievers)
• Perceptions of neocolonialism (e.g. present-day Zimbabwe)
• Political imbalances (e.g. one group holding a disproportionate share of political power, e.g. anti-Tutsi xenophobia in Rwanda before and during the genocide)
• Terrorism (e.g. anti-Muslim xenophobia following 9-11)
• Competition for scarce resources
• A mix of the above.

Data

Here are some data on xenophobia in Russia:

And here are data on the way Muslims and non-Muslims see each other (click on the image to enlarge):

(source)

What is Democracy? (20): Rotation in Office

One of the arguments against democracy and in favor of authoritarian forms of government turns to the economy. Economic development requires consistency, coherence, long term and central planning, all of which is said to be incompatible with democracy. The rotation in office typical of a democracy puts always other people in power, with other priorities and laws. Democratic governments, laws and policies change continuously. This goes against the interests of long term planning, as well as the interests of companies that need stability for their investments.

Furthermore, the constant pressure of public opinion and the next election, forces governments to sacrifice long term benefits for short term advantages that may even have negative consequences in the long term.

However, it is difficult to deny that the democratic procedures for changing governments create stability because they help to avoid revolt. Opposition movements do not have to resort to extreme measures to gain some influence. In addition, if the people decide to change something, this is because they believe that it ought to change, that it is not good as it is. Consistency is not the only value.