Law and globalisation

There are not too many Tories with whom I concur with on substantive issues, but former Conservative Party (of Britain) chairperson Chris Patten is one of the exceptions.

Attending his talk - part of a series of Lord Slynn's Foundation lectures - afforded me the opportunity to meet the man I first knew as the writer of the controversial book, 'East and West', on his experiences as the last British governor of Hong Kong.

The book contains neither the usual nostalgia or diplomacy. Rather, it criticises the Chinese government openly. As a result, news baron Rupert Murdoch, who wanted to enter the lucrative Chinese market, had refused to publish it.

Patten has just been elected Chancellor of Oxford University, from which he had graduated with an MA in Modern History from Balliol.

The topic of the lecture - 'Law and Globalisation' as well as the venue, the grandiose Gray's Inn Hall - provided an expectation that the talk would be full of legalese, but Patten gave an honest warning: "Don't expect much on law from an Oxford historian."

Ironically, just a few days before the talk, he had delivered another speech to a group of lawyers from the Bar Council.

Patten said his own career personified the world's transition to globalisation - he went from being a Tory politician (culminating in being chairperson of the Conservative Party) to the gubernatorial role in Hong Kong. Since September 1999, he has been a European Union (EU) Commissioner.

He argued that there are two main areas in law and globalisation. These are the adoption of legal principles and norms such as trial by jury and burden of evidence in legal systems across the world; and international treaties such as those on agricultural tariffs, intellectual property and the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights (UNDHR).

Indeed, the leitmotif that emerged throughout his lecture was universal human rights, as something that "we hold in common as human beings".

The UNDHR reflects the intellectual epoch of the time it was formulated - the post-World War II era - and bears a strong US influence with the idea that "human rights should be protected by the rule of law".

For Patten, the document is just as important today as it was in those idealistic times in that he believes international regulation should provide predictable rights for people to enforce.

He also acknowledged the importance of information technology (to which malaysiakini readers can attest) in undermining authoritarian regimes and their monopoly of information.

Economics, though, remains at the centre of globalisation. Boundaries today are highly irrelevant as technology breaks all barriers.

Patten's faith in globalisation was illustrated by citing figures of a 15-fold increase in trade since 1950 that resulted in a six-fold increase in Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Quoting World Bank reports, he said globalisation has promoted equality. The globalisation of medical services underlines the social advantage of globalisation. Or, as he said tongue-in-cheek, "death control goes hand in hand with birth control".

However, this does not undermine the nation-state in Patten's opinion, which bears a resemblance to the warning by Phillip Bobbit that globalisation is a mere transition from nation-state to market-state, and not the end of the state itself as Kenichi Ohmae believes.

Political traditions will remain, as localised cultures provide a sense of belonging in this age of uncertainty. The paradox is now that the EU has more nation-states in its midst, each of which is willing to share its sovereignty.

Despite some of the more optimistic images thrown about globalisation, including "watching an American soap in a Malaysian kampung", he did not turn a blind eye to the perils of globalisation - if left unchecked, Patten believes, it can undermine what we cherish locally.

Globalisation should not lead to a 'one size fits all' approach. While citing the economic benefits of globalisation, Patten recognised the other side to it. The world, as a result of globalisation, is now highly unstable. Poverty is widespread.

There is no escape of "our relative wealth and their relative poverty", GDP improvements notwithstanding. This creates a sense of alienation, which he related to the idea of a whole village, all gathering in front of a solitary television set.

The values that the West promotes are also not necessarily seen as unalloyed goods in the developing world - and this results in a backlash of "atavistic revolt and religious fundamentalism".

The fallout has led to calls for sustainable development and, at the further end of the spectrum, the anti-globalisation movement which, ironically enough, is a product of its anti-thesis, globalisation.

Patten advocated his faith in fair and free trade, quoting William Easterly's 'The Elusive Quest of Growth'. Policies such as aid, or cancellation of debts are not sufficient, or perhaps encourage the opposite result.

He said it is more important to address the fundamentals of facilitating a liberalisation of the economy - a contentious issue with which I do not readily agree as a whole.

Yet the radical free market agenda was also criticised - and Patten cited the example of the failure in Russia to liberalise democratically. Instead, it created a kleptocracy.

Corruption is the main source of poverty and misery in the world, he said. Today, the world is more conscious on the relationship between globalisation and good governance.

Being a Eurocrat, Patten illustrated the EU's own human rights preconditions to its trade agenda. He did deny the EU's weaknesses, but said no one can deny its function in promoting democracy, and thus providing a relevant lesson for everyone to learn in the age of globalisation. It reconciles national freedoms and common discipline.

Patten further said it is not enough to focus on commercial laws and ignore individual freedoms. The law today is seen more than as a mere instrument - people expect the law that applies to them to meet a certain international standard, both for human rights and commerce.

In his words, globalisation would only be genuine if the same laws are applied to both Chinese dissident Wei Jingsheng and 'Ronald McDonald'.

Elaborating on a view expounded in 'East and West', Patten voiced criticism of the now rather-muted 'Asian values' justification, which believes that the GDP increases in proportion to the number of opposition politicians jailed.

'Asian values' lost its credibility after the 1997 East Asian financial crisis, when the response demanded most of the countries affected was good governance.

On a related note, he gave the example of a report on the backwardness of Arab countries - found to be largely due to the marginalisation of women and lack of political participation. There is no defence, according to Patten, for "friendly autocrats".

Patten said trade is needed for progress, but also defended the rights of the developing world as highlighted by the failure of the recent WTO talks at Cancun, Mexico.

He noted that the key to realising such rights lies in combining the role of the free market within tolerated limits and the need to uphold of the law.

Applied globally, this would mean that developed countries cannot expect exemptions while preaching the benefits of a free market to the developing world. Schadenfreude should not be the ideal dictating globalisation.

Speaking on global politics, Patten said he believes power comes with responsibility. Otherwise, power would create resentment, as shown by a recent survey on perceptions of the US in the Islamic world.

Patten was outspoken about the neo-conservative view of American 'exceptionalism', such as the Bush administration's hostility to the Kyoto Protocol, refusal to be subject to the International Criminal Court (ICC), and on the role of the UN in both sanctioning conflict and mandating reconstruction in Iraq.

While sympathising with American suspicion about the ICC initially, he chastised the US for still refusing to agree its creation even after its suspicion had been taken into account.

Patten said he agreed with UN secretary-general Kofi Annan (photo) about the ICC's potential to promote universal justice, noting that US handling of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay as only fanning the antagonism of its enemies.

On the British-American 'special relationship, Patten said it was an illusion for Whitehall to think that it has any significant influence on the White House. The relationship is based on the rhetoric of former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and is no longer applicable in this very different age.

Patten did not deny the need for a strong transatlantic relationship, but felt Britain should not sacrifice leadership of Europe which has a more direct effect on it.

Taking another jibe at neo-conservatives, he said British Prime Minister Tony Blair (photo) should ponder over who has more influence on US President George W Bush - Blair or Israel's Likud Party.

Patten also referred to recent Nobel Peace Prize recipient, human rights defender Shirin Abadi of Iran. Her role in promoting religious and civilisational dialogue, based on shared values, shows that alienation is not enough to promote universal human rights.

It was a rewarding evening listening to Patten's views. Frank, balanced and at times humorous, he delivered a broad interpretation of the topic.

In conclusion, I would like to cite Patten's words to the mainly British audience that evening: "It is not enough that we alone have human rights, but we ignore other human right fighters who are suffering in their pursuit of freedom."

In this age of globalisation, the struggle for freedom must be global as well.

NIK NAZMI NIK AHMAD is a Malaysian commentator, writer and activist who resides in London. His writings have appeared in Harakah, malaysiakini, Berita Keadilan, Siasah and Asia Times Online.