3071-The political economy of new slavery

194 The Global Framework for Development
aid, why not do likewise by providing a source of support or livelihood in
the place where one is? Our cosmopolitan commitments are well tested
by attitudes towards immigration (Beitz, 1983). (The issue is debatable of
course: am I morally inconsistent if I give to or support measures to help
the homeless in my own country, but refuse to let them into my house?
If not, and my country is not like my house, then a moral difference can
be found. Certainly the house/country parallel seems to be somewhat
misguided.)
Of course, all these claims are highly controversial and not fully
defended here. They may be controversial among development ethicists
as well as between development ethicists and defenders of national policies.
That is the point. These are highly controversial ethical debates,
and the ways they get resolved in policies make an immense difference
as to how far and in what ways poverty is addressed in the world.
September 11th 2001
Another area of controversy is over the appropriate responses to international
terrorism after September 11th. Apart from any special concerns
about the rightness of the kind of military responses following
the autumn of 2001, I wish to flag the wider issues to do with both the
privileging of the ‘security against international terrorism’ agenda and
the interpretations of this privileged status in terms of what has to be
done (Dower, 2002). How we think countries should respond to those
events makes an immense difference to the fate of the poor in the world.
It is a vast topic. Let me focus on a couple of aspects.
First, by making this security agenda a priority, a downgrading of other
international goals is signalled, conceptually and empirically – conceptually
by, for instance, giving security a very narrow focus; empirically
by devoting vast resources to combating terrorism which realistically
leaves less to be spent on other agendas. If security is taken in the
broadest sense to cover environmental security, economic security, health
security and so on – aspects of security that are far more important and
pressing for the vast majority of people in the world than the faint
possibility of being the victim of a terrorist attack – then policies for
the world based on security alone – let alone other core values – would
be very different from those in place now.
Second, more effective policies to combat terrorism which included
a serious attempt to reduce the root causes of terrorism such as global
inequalities or a militarized world fed by the arms trade, again make a
difference to the fate of the world’s poor. How far the world is really
changing after September 11th is an open question, as much a matter