3071-The political economy of new slavery

Nigel Dower 193
affect negatively the level of wealth within them? Such a suggestion
might seem to be wrong because it conflicts with any country’s right to
protect its economic interests. This right might seem self-evident if interpreted
modestly, but as a strong claim to being an overriding factor, it is
problematic. But does the latter right mean that a rich country should
not be required to share its wealth, only part of its incremental wealth –
that is, part of its growth? But why should we accept this restriction?
Are rich people morally entitled to keep all their wealth? Are countries
any different? Perhaps they are, it may be said, because a government
has a duty to its citizens not to pursue policies which lead to some of its
citizens being forced to have a worse standard of living, for example
through unemployment. But this cannot be right. Most policies (perhaps
all or at least all that are actually justifiable), especially those of the neoliberal,
have the consequence of there being winners and losers. The
question is: is the distribution of winners and losers socially acceptable
or justified? If the problematic distributions are those which involve
the very poor being impoverished further, then the response should be:
‘have national policies that protect the poor’, not ‘resist all forms of aid
that might weaken the overall GNP of a country’. In any case if it is an
appeal to the position of the very poor that is made in justifying national
policies, that same appeal is precisely the basis for a vigorous aid policy,
too. If on cosmopolitan assumptions (which we take it here the defender
of national interests accepts in principle) all people matter equally, then
all poverty matters equally.
This point is reinforced if we press home the problem of consistency
in foreign policy. An ethical foreign policy should be a consistent foreign
policy. There is something paradoxical about a policy of foreign aid
sitting side-by-side with a policy on debt-servicing if poor countries are
having to pay in debt-servicing considerably more than they receive
in aid grants. There is something morally disturbing about a policy on
aid – however well meaning – being accepted by a government which
at the same time uses its economic power to determine terms of trade
favourable to itself, to set up trade barriers, to preside over the development
of patent laws especially in the field of biotechnology, in order
to maintain its economic superiority over struggling poorer countries, or
maintains economic relations with those who practice economic slavery.
Again rich countries take with one hand and give back a fraction with
the other hand. There is also, arguably, something morally incoherent
about pursuing a generous policy on aid while adopting a very tough
policy on refugees, especially of an economic status. If we are willing to
share some of our wealth (perhaps only incremental wealth) by giving