Blood, Toil, Tears and Art Musuems

In 2011, a group 130 artists, writers and curators decided to boycott the new Guggenheim museum in Abu Dhabi.  In a petition signed by them, they demanded that the Guggenheim foundation and its developers take stronger actions to protect the rights of the workers building the 450,000 sq-ft, 200-million dollar project. The bold new Frank Gehry designed building is poised to rise from the beaches of Sadiyat Island (itself a 27 billion dollar project), off the coast of Abu Dhabi.

All across the Middle East and in the UAE in particular, massive multimillion dollar development projects are springing out of the desert sands. Global investors, seeing opportunity in these tax-free, oil-rich states are quick to seize the opportunity to gain a petro-dollar or two. In neighboring Dubai, obscenely expensive construction projects take shape overnight and the mantra seems to be: All that’s glitters… can be built in Dubai.   

Have oil, will build..anything: The Guggenheim Abu Dhabi

Abu Dhabi on the other hand, always the quieter elder sibling of Dubai, has taken to the world stage in a different way- it has positioned itself to become the cultural capital of the region as opposed to Dubai’s glitz and glamor. In this endeavor, Abu Dhabi has brought to the region big name brands in the arts such as the Guggenheim and the Louvre. Millions of dollars have been spent on wooing the art world and Pritzker winning architects like Gehry.

What they weren’t counting on however, was the art itself.  The art world thrives on exploration of new ideas. Where once art’s sole duty was to be undutiful, today it champions causes and breaks boundaries- it strives for purpose. In Abu Dhabi, a suitable cause to fight for wasn’t hard to find.

Behind the shimmering glass facades and steel megaliths rising up from the desert, is the work of armies of migrant laborers. Hundreds of thousands of people from the developing world, countries like India, Bangladesh, the Philippines, Indonesia, come to the Middle East in search of better jobs.  Many end up in the construction sector, others in domestic work, commercial and technical services. And many are exploited and abused with little or no rights. 

Heigh ho and off to work we go: Migrant construction workers line up for the bus back to camp (constructionweek.com)

The post-oil boom Middle East in general has a very poor track record in human rights. Racism and social stratification are rampant and migrant workers occupy the lowest rungs. Workers live in squalid camps on the outskirts of cities and are bussed to work sites every day. The threat of deportation is used to keep them in check and workers are often denied pay, overtime, time off and other benefits. Elsewhere in the cities, female migrants work as domestics and nannies, often abused and unpaid. Like the slaves who built the pyramids, armies of labour are building the modern day monuments of the Middle East.

But in the theater of global economics, these Arab states suddenly find themselves dependent on other countries. Tourism, free trade and construction are major income generators here and to attract educated foreigners to come play in the sands, an marketable image of safety, security and freedom are necessary. The same forces that brought wealth to the region and now starting to exact reform. Globalization giveth and globalization demandeth.

And so, when the art world began to see how their museums were being built, it provoked a sharp outrage as with the artists’ boycott of the Guggenheim. A very interesting situation then arises. Can foreign developers, artists, planners and architects bring about change in the human rights regime in these places? Can globalization inadvertently foster the birth of freedom and democracy?  Can there be such a thing as “activist investment”?

Many of the world’s top financial players ranging from chain-stores to investment firms have an interest in the region. And many of them are obliged to follow ethics and laws of their own countries. Wouldn’t it be antithetical to have IKEA- a company built on the premise of Scandinavia’s liberal workers’ rights and laws- build a store using mistreated labor? Or the Louvre- an institution that celebrates freedom of thought and expression- set up shop in a land of censorship and media control? But they do! And through the open door of globalization they have an opportunity to build a constructive dialogue and implement change.   

The road to equal rights?

In the case of the Guggenheim, the artists succeeded in drawing attention to their cause. The Abu Dhabi government found itself putting on a brave face to the world as it quickly drew up a new charter of workers’ rights.  Other investors and developers were quick to follow. The Guggenheim, the Louvre, New York University (NYU) and others along with their developers began including worker remuneration, living conditions, and treatment into their agreements and contracts. Cornell University has found itself asking the same questions in Doha, Qatar. A Human Rights Watch report on Abu Dhabi from this year shows marked improvement in worker treatment including better housing and compensation.

The implications for financial institutions’ commitment to equity or even the education of planners and architects in our globalized world, is huge.  The Middle East is highly dependent on outside expertise and they have the money to afford it. Equity can potentially begin before the project even gets off the drawing board. After all, the structures of inequality are designed and built by professionals like us- laborers work on our designs, workers camps and servant quarters are designed by us, city legislation and plans are drawn up by us. This is another new face of the global equity movement-where freedom is championed by the power of the contract than by rule of force.

Abu Dhabi with its history is still far more humane in its treatment of migrants than some of its other regional neighbors. However, there is still a long way to go to achieve social equality here. A sense of graduated citizenship still runs strong and skin color and ethnic background are still an important determinant of social status. But we’ve just turned the page on what should be a very interesting chapter for the region.

Chuck Local, Buy Global

LEED certified parking structure in Santa Monica:
Complete with a Zen Garden and solar panels

With sustainability an all-important buzz word today, green buildings, particularly the LEED certified variety, have become all the rage. Across the world- from Detroit to Dubai, builders wanting to look environment-friendly go all out on energy saving technology and materials to earn a LEED certification. And yet, the LEED certification process is flawed because it is a system mostly designed to work in the United States. 

LEED does not take into account climate, regional variations, and availability of traditional, local materials or technology. Water conservation in Dubai does not have the same urgency as conservation in Detroit. LEED also relies heavily on models rather than actual usage and performance. Real users may not be as energy conscious as the builders intended. Moreover, most LEED qualifying energy saving devices (themselves produced in energy intensive processes) need to be transported over long distances burning fossil fuels because LEED is primarily an American qualification system. In many cases therefore, the system works against the most sustainable approach- the local one.

A similar argument is brewing on the global scale. Last week Canada lost a WTO dispute regarding local content restrictions on green technology. The WTO’s local content rules are part of the Agreement on Trade Related Investment Measures created under GATT but agreed to by all WTO members. It prohibits the establishment of any rules on investment that may favour local industry over global competition.

Canada’s “Green Scheme” to support renewable energy development requires that at least 60% of equipment be sourced locally. Even if the energy offsets achieved by sourcing locally are negligible, it is the very essence of sustainable thinking. Trading goods across the globe may make financial sense but creates a massive carbon footprint. In addition to this, foreign manufacturing need not adhere to the same eco-standards and are harder to monitor. In a rational world, this makes sense- be sustainable, buy local.

Not so for the WTO. The European Union and Japan brought a case against Canada at the WTO on grounds of protectionism- and Canada lost. As of this week, Canada stills intends to keep the local content requirement. The tussle between free trade and sustainability though, continues.

Lets be vague so that the climate doesn't know we're talking about it

Sustainability in the face of climate change is too important an issue to avoid in the name of economic growth. The need for incentives to encourage renewables is beyond doubt as these are fledgling industries competing against established energy regimes.  The WTO has one thing right- both these goals are and must be two sides of the same strategy.  Beyond this however, WTO language becomes increasingly vague. 

From the WTO: The purpose of trade liberalization and the WTO’s key principle of non-discrimination is a more efficient allocation of resources, which should be positive for the environment.

Their chief argument is that free trade brings growth and growth brings resources to foster sustainable ideas. However, globalization itself brings about sustainability issues of such a large magnitude that it negates whatever impact, our new found efficiency brings.  If the goal is indeed a more efficient (cheaper?) use (allocation? Does not nature have some say in allocation?) of resources, would it not make sense to use resources that are available locally?

It is unlikely that the WTO or other global financial institutions will introduce stronger language with respect to sustainability or climate change. Perhaps more extra-legal solutions are necessary. The mayor of San Antonio was in the news recently for a highly controversial solar power project. The project would bring 400MW of solar power to the city. After global bidding, the contract was awarded to a Korean company much to the consternation of American solar energy companies. However, the contract includes a number of stipulations that would be more sustainable than international imports. The contract required that the company relocate its regional HQ to the region and build a manufacturing plant (800 new jobs and an investment of $100 million). 

Possibly a balance between global competition and sustainable practice. 

For whom the bombs fall

So last week a UN special rapporteur announced the setting up of a special investigation unit to look into US drone attacks and targeted killings. Under the aegis of the UN Human Rights Council, the team expects to look into the possibility that at least some of the strikes can be classified as war crimes.  Now, before anyone gets worked up about this, it is worth noting that this is nothing new. The UN, the human rights council and its affiliates have routinely issued such calls since the first reports of drones in the sky surfaced in 2002. In June this year UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay called for a UN investigation. In 2010, another special rapporteur published a study on drone attacks. As in 2009... and so on. 

Ten years after the first targeted killing by a US drone in Yemen, the UN has churned out a bunch of reports and made a few threats to.. do something about it. In comparison, it took about a year for the UN to go from talk to special inquiry and resolution on the issue of war crimes and human rights violations in Syria, although action is lacking there as well.

If a missile falls on civilians in the desert where there is no one to film it, is it still a war crime?

Amid the growing chorus of questions on the legality of targeted killings is an ominous silent majority. Nobody mourns for those who cannot be seen or heard. These attacks occur deep in the wilderness, far removed from the rest of the world. And while there is room for doubt on the morality of the issue, there is no doubt that these killings are starting to look indiscriminate. A 2009 Brookings Institute study finds that 10 civilians die for every combatant killed by a US drone. Another study at Stanford had higher numbers: 49 civilians for every combatant. The numbers are very discomforting: "TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 - 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 - 881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228 - 1,362 individuals".

The same study talks of “double tap” attacks, where a drone fires a second missile at rescuers rushing to the scene of a first strike. A New York Times report suggests that the final authority on target selection is one man- the president- who plays the roles of judge, jury and executioner. It also says that all males in the area of a strike are not counted as civilians simply because they were in the vicinity of a known combatant. Sounds a lot like guilt by association. But a missile rarely leaves much in the aftermath to verify the verdict- a verdict reached thousands of miles away.

Such reports are troubling at the very least because it would appear that a very secretive group of people are able to wield such extraordinary powers of death with very little oversight or need for justification.  Equally worrisome is how far removed and dispassionate the trigger finger is from the scene. But what rules do you draft for this new kind of war and who governs it? Clearly the UN needs to, and has been thinking about this.. for ten years now. This timeframe is not acceptable either.

The moral relativism and ethics of the UN have long been part of its criticism. Is terrorism, war crime, genocide etc. defined by who the actors are? Do some elite nations enjoy immunity from suspicion and impunity to act at will? If so, it undermines the very reason for the existence of a global peace-keeping agency. Ethics decided by consensus means that the UN itself has no framework for ethics in such cases- something that the organization needs. The effectiveness of the UN is also stymied by a strong few- particularly nations holding veto power. Drone warfare continues unabated, as does the brutal conflict in Syria.

The role of the organization in global governance has changed- from the cold war where its primary task was to prevent governments from ending the world, to today, where it has become a platform for global issues.   Its capacity to take strong action has diminished and it would almost seem unfair to expect the UN to do so today. But as a legitimate platform of justice and peace, the UN can accomplish much just by bringing global problems to light. In an age where billions of people have personal access to instant communication and mass media, the role of government as an agent of information control and dissemination has declined.

Raising awareness..
And spawning a whole new range of internet memes

The UN has yet to embrace this fact and use it to its advantage- people matter more than governments and public opinion shapes governments. For all the reports churned out by UN inquiries and investigations into rights abuses and war crimes, very few of them see the light of day.

In 2012, a short independent film called Kony 2012, highlighting war crimes in Uganda and Congo, went viral on the internet. It gathered more than a 100 million views on social media sites in a matter of months. In a matter of days, the US senate passed a resolution on the issue and 5000 African Union troops joined 100 US Special Forces in the hunt for Joseph Kony and his militia. A 30 minute video accomplished way more than years of UN, ICC and Interpol reports.

World approval of drone strikes-
 Pew Research Center/Statista

Today, a majority of Americans give tacit approval to drone strikes because it is assumed that they are killing “the bad guys”- the suspected bad guys that is. The rest of the world does not.

If global governance is becoming more democratic and public opinion has become stronger than government will, it is time for the UN to adapt and embrace mass media and awareness as a potent weapon.

The debate over drone warfare and targeted killings has languished in the halls and chambers of assembly, choked by governments whose legitimacy comes from the silence of the majority.  With resources far greater than any independent filmmaker, the potential to reach millions with accurate facts on global issues is immense. 

Hunger Games

Food prices today are rising similar to prices during the 2007-2008 food crisis, when a number of simultaneous factors led to a sharp rise in world food prices. This is in turn led to political and social unrest, as people took to the streets in cities worldwide to protest the cost of food. The protests in Mexico were perhaps the most well known. Dubbed the "Tortilla Riots” by the media, Mexican cities saw a number of violent and colorful riots as the price of Tortillas- the staple of Mexican food- soared uncontrollably out of the reach of average Mexicans. 

The Mexico crisis came about through three major reasons:

First, the introduction of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) in 1994, brought in large amounts of cheaper American corn and maize (ingredients in Tortillas) into Mexico. Over the next decade, cheaper imported corn put Mexican farmers out of commission and made Mexico increasingly dependent on foreign imports and distributors.

Secondly, in the early 2000s, a major shift occurred in US corn production thanks to the growing importance of alternate energy in the US. Corn can be used in the biofuel industry to make ethanol and corn farmers began to realize that the biofuel industry paid more for corn than the food industry. The International Food Policy Research Institute says that biofuels from food sources, alone contribute to 30% of the global food price rise as the lines blur between food and fuel industries. As a result, a smaller percentage of corn was available for export and competition from ethanol production drove corn prices up.

Make more ethanol, make less tortillas- Taken from Timothy Wise (2012)

Finally, corn exporters and distributors to Mexico, seeing greater profit in rising prices, began hoarding supplies to wait for even higher prices. With local production in Mexico destroyed by international competition, the only corn available on the market was the highly inflated imports coming in through these distributors.

On the streets in Mexico, far removed from all this global wrangling, the 52 million people below the poverty line (that’s 47% of the population) suddenly find that bread cost more than two-thirds of their income. Unfortunately, hunger is actually profitable to some.

The pattern is uncomfortably familiar.

Global trade supplanting local industry leading to devastating consequences for local vulnerable populations. The solutions offered by the World Bank and the WTO at the time however, remained faithful to their official mission: the expansion of trade and the removal of trade barriers. In 2008, The heads of the World Bank and the World Trade Organization, Robert Zoellick and Pascal Lamy, called for more liberal trade to fight food price inflation. On the other hand, the UN, the FAO and the WFP announced aid programs for farmers in developing countries and other support for local food industries.

The inherent danger of surrendering local industry to global distributors, whose end goal is profit, is summed up in two words: Food Security. Giving up local, regional and even national food security for economic reasons may promise lower food prices and greater availability of food but it comes with certain risks. For developing countries with political or economic instabilities, those risks may end up hurting the most vulnerable in the population.

Food insecurity vs. Daily Calorie intake- Countries with more food, also eat way more than they should (The Guardian/Chartsbin)

 

The danger isn’t just limited to raw food imports but also extends to retail distribution. Populations the size of entire nations now depend on large consumer retail giants such as Tesco and Walmart for food. The problem with retail giants, as with any profit-seeking entity, is that they prefer cheap and efficient over local or sustainable.  In the aisles of any major retail giant, we love the choice of 50 different brands of cereal but also find coconuts from Malaysia, olives from Spain and tulips from Holland. For such companies, it makes more sense to concentrate their sources to save on transportation and storage. The problem with this is that the moment a food source is threatened by war, drought, souring diplomatic relations etc, there is no local industry to turn to. Also, as in the case of Mexico, most corporations favor profit over people.

It isn’t just food that is up for grabs. Prime agricultural land is also being traded away at a global scale without consideration to local needs. In Ethiopia for example, nearly 7.4million acres of rich fertile land have been leased to foreign corporations to create nation-sized farms (watch video report from The Guardian here). Ethiopia also receives billions of dollars in food aid to feed its people. The irony is delicious but doesn’t fill a dinner plate- on one hand Ethiopia needs food aid while simultaneously giving away its best resource to fight hunger- land. Give a man food, he will eat for a day, give him a farm he will eat for life. Sadly, allegations of forced displacement also cloud the murky land grabbing scene that is all too common in Africa today.

Across the ocean from Ethiopia, another major developing country opened its markets to foreign investment. Last month, the Indian government reversed a previous ruling and decided to allow foreign retail giants into the Indian market. It is anticipated that this move will improve the highly inefficient food production process in India. However, much like everywhere else, the move is also expected to adversely affect local retail and local farm production. In India, where farmers remain a vulnerable population despite an agriculture-dominant economy and food habits have long stressed on fresh, healthy food, it may mean poorer farmers and a widening of the gap between the farm and the dinner plate.

No doubt, international competitiveness brings numerous advantages to the Indian market. More than a third of food produced in India is lost in transport and storage and most farmers use traditional and unsustainable practices. However, it is imperative for India and other countries with a high food security risk to carefully consider stories such as Mexico’s Tortilla riots to avoid the same fate. Governments can take steps to ensure that foreign distributors support local industry by requiring investment in certain sectors or by sourcing locally- down to a district or city level. By dangling the incentives just right, it is possible to steer these behemoths to more desirable outcomes for small business, farms and local retail, without tampering with prices.

Moreover, making local farms globally competitive would seem like a worthy challenge for agencies such as the WTO to take on. Farms in developed nations are able to market directly onto the global scene or to major wholesale and retail distributors through technology and modern communication. Farms in poorer nations however, rely largely on local markets. Investing in farms would bring security to both farmers and the nation. For the WTO, raising barriers on trade should ideally mean more for farmers than just retail giants. The current focus on nation states and large corporations fail to address concerns of the average citizen and important things like Tortillas get lost in the mix.