Featured Contributions
Colonialism, antislavery, and reparations
|
An educative talk by Dr. Katarina Schwarz, a Rights Lab Associate Direction in the field of Law & Policy at the University of Nottingham, on the intersections and tension between colonialism, antislavery and reparations.
|
Changing the Game: An interview with Arjen Boekhold
I am Arjen, for over 15 years I have worked in all kinds of international commodity chains, from cacoa to coffee, from cotton to cashew. In my work, I have always tried to make sure that everybody involved in those commodity chains also benefits from these chains. From the farmer who produces the raw materials but also to take care of the environment while producing your product. In the core of all the work that I have done, from working for a foundation of the Rabobank in strengthening the coffee branch, working for an NGO which was the founding father of Fairtrade, as well as during my seven years for Tony’s Chocolonely, there was always one key question. How do you generate such a business case that while doing business you solve ethical, societal or environmental problems? This is also the key element of my own company, Game Changer Unlimited, where I challenge, inspire and assist companies to think about the way they do business. This is not in a way of doing philanthropy, which means assisting people with the money you make. Nor by having a CSR policy in limiting the risk or damage you create. But really to ask yourself what problem do I solve while doing business. This is a totally different way of thinking.
I am Arjen, for over 15 years I have worked in all kinds of international commodity chains, from cacoa to coffee, from cotton to cashew. In my work, I have always tried to make sure that everybody involved in those commodity chains also benefits from these chains. From the farmer who produces the raw materials but also to take care of the environment while producing your product. In the core of all the work that I have done, from working for a foundation of the Rabobank in strengthening the coffee branch, working for an NGO which was the founding father of Fairtrade, as well as during my seven years for Tony’s Chocolonely, there was always one key question. How do you generate such a business case that while doing business you solve ethical, societal or environmental problems? This is also the key element of my own company, Game Changer Unlimited, where I challenge, inspire and assist companies to think about the way they do business. This is not in a way of doing philanthropy, which means assisting people with the money you make. Nor by having a CSR policy in limiting the risk or damage you create. But really to ask yourself what problem do I solve while doing business. This is a totally different way of thinking.
First of all, there is the fully traceable value chain. This principle is about creating value in such a way that you know where it comes from. As a company, you cannot feel the responsibility if you do not know where your product comes from. Most of the commodity chains are unfortunately organized like that, and as a result, it becomes easy to point to others when things go wrong.
Secondly, you have to pay a fair price that guarantees other stakeholders, in this case, that the cacao producers have a living income. That means that you do not just pay the market price. Rather you calculate the cost of living and the cost of production and based on that you determine the price that farmers should get. That is a totally different way of thinking.
Next to this, it is important to establish long-term relations. Transitions cannot be created in a few years, so you really have to work together with a long term vision in changing these systems. It is easy to run away when you find child labour in a certain community, but the only right thing to do is to try to solve it together. So, when you find problems in your supply chain, which Tony sometimes still does, it is important to work together to solve them, rather than to run away.
You have to work on professional production for all people. Therefore, you have to make sure that the less powerful producers can organize the supply chain in such a way that they have economies of scale and are also able to stand up to the most powerful players in the system.
“In today’s times, you can still feel the colonial ghost lingering in all relations we have internationally, certainly in the cacao industry. ”
The big companies, who are market leaders and still have the most power in the supply chains, are very often spin-offs of colonial companies which were created through colonial power relations. In many developing countries you can still see the impact of colonialism on many levels like the education system, the law, development aid and more. So, there is not one level on which we have to start the change or one side of the system we can point at.
The problem is that, very often, too many people are just pointing fingers at each other and expecting the other to change. Instead, I believe we should focus more on defining what the responsibility of each player entails, and from there we can work to push and pull parties to take their own responsibility. However, for all of that to come into action, I would say we first have to reset the rules of the game of politics, which lies on the side of government responsibility.
Would you say that Tony Chocolonely has managed to make a significant contribution in changing and inspiring the entire chocolate branch to become more responsible and slave-free or is there still a long way to go?
Secondly, you have to pay a fair price that guarantees other stakeholders, in this case, that the cacao producers have a living income. That means that you do not just pay the market price. Rather you calculate the cost of living and the cost of production and based on that you determine the price that farmers should get. That is a totally different way of thinking.
Next to this, it is important to establish long-term relations. Transitions cannot be created in a few years, so you really have to work together with a long term vision in changing these systems. It is easy to run away when you find child labour in a certain community, but the only right thing to do is to try to solve it together. So, when you find problems in your supply chain, which Tony sometimes still does, it is important to work together to solve them, rather than to run away.
You have to work on professional production for all people. Therefore, you have to make sure that the less powerful producers can organize the supply chain in such a way that they have economies of scale and are also able to stand up to the most powerful players in the system.
“In today’s times, you can still feel the colonial ghost lingering in all relations we have internationally, certainly in the cacao industry. ”
The big companies, who are market leaders and still have the most power in the supply chains, are very often spin-offs of colonial companies which were created through colonial power relations. In many developing countries you can still see the impact of colonialism on many levels like the education system, the law, development aid and more. So, there is not one level on which we have to start the change or one side of the system we can point at.
The problem is that, very often, too many people are just pointing fingers at each other and expecting the other to change. Instead, I believe we should focus more on defining what the responsibility of each player entails, and from there we can work to push and pull parties to take their own responsibility. However, for all of that to come into action, I would say we first have to reset the rules of the game of politics, which lies on the side of government responsibility.
Would you say that Tony Chocolonely has managed to make a significant contribution in changing and inspiring the entire chocolate branch to become more responsible and slave-free or is there still a long way to go?
When Tony Chocolonely started, everybody asked “are you really going to be fair-trade certified? Is that really possible? The world is about anonymous commodity trade, you will never break those systems” People have always been very sceptical about the changes that Tony could bring around and kind of impact that it could really have but now you can see that the whole chocolate industry is working according to some of the sustainability standards that we have set. It took us a couple years and a lot of adventures to make it happen but now for every kilo of chocolate made by Tony’s, they know where it comes from.
“A couple of years ago I spoke of the record with the CEO of one of the biggest global chocolate market leaders and he said that without Tony’s they wouldn’t have had nearly as much ambition on their sustainability strategy and traceability agenda.”We definitely still have a long way to go because, for example, all cacao worldwide is being traded on trade exchanges in New York and London and the biggest cacao port of the world is located in Amsterdam. So, the prices of cacao are set in countries that have nothing to do with the production of cacao which is a consequence of how we have set up our trade relations in colonial times.
But on the other hand, change is really possible if you dare to think really ambitiously, whilst also coming into action. That is the biggest lesson that I can give to IR students; too often we only think about visions or about policies, dreaming about how the world should be but there are also a lot of people focussing on day-to-day action and we have to strategically combine those two. In fact, it is all about combining your vision with direct action and celebrating small steps accomplished whilst never being fully satisfied until you reach your mission.
Finally, do you have any tips for students that want to be more responsible in their consumer behaviour and in making sure that they are not unconsciously contributing to forms of exploitation?
My main tip would be to never hide behind others; think for yourself and be critical. You cannot be perfect in your action, but the least you can do is be conscious about what is going on and look at what is in your sphere of influence to create change. Sometimes we get depressed by the size of the problems around us, but if you really look at what Tony’s has done, it is looking at ‘what is my place in the system and what can I do within that sphere of influence?’ Try to grow your sphere of influence and look at what kind of impact you can have within that.
My favourite quote regarding this would be: “If you think you are too small to make an impact, try sleeping with a mosquito in the room”. Never think that you are too small to make an impact and remember to stay ambitious.
“If you think you are too small to make an impact, try sleeping with a mosquito in the room”
“A couple of years ago I spoke of the record with the CEO of one of the biggest global chocolate market leaders and he said that without Tony’s they wouldn’t have had nearly as much ambition on their sustainability strategy and traceability agenda.”We definitely still have a long way to go because, for example, all cacao worldwide is being traded on trade exchanges in New York and London and the biggest cacao port of the world is located in Amsterdam. So, the prices of cacao are set in countries that have nothing to do with the production of cacao which is a consequence of how we have set up our trade relations in colonial times.
But on the other hand, change is really possible if you dare to think really ambitiously, whilst also coming into action. That is the biggest lesson that I can give to IR students; too often we only think about visions or about policies, dreaming about how the world should be but there are also a lot of people focussing on day-to-day action and we have to strategically combine those two. In fact, it is all about combining your vision with direct action and celebrating small steps accomplished whilst never being fully satisfied until you reach your mission.
Finally, do you have any tips for students that want to be more responsible in their consumer behaviour and in making sure that they are not unconsciously contributing to forms of exploitation?
My main tip would be to never hide behind others; think for yourself and be critical. You cannot be perfect in your action, but the least you can do is be conscious about what is going on and look at what is in your sphere of influence to create change. Sometimes we get depressed by the size of the problems around us, but if you really look at what Tony’s has done, it is looking at ‘what is my place in the system and what can I do within that sphere of influence?’ Try to grow your sphere of influence and look at what kind of impact you can have within that.
My favourite quote regarding this would be: “If you think you are too small to make an impact, try sleeping with a mosquito in the room”. Never think that you are too small to make an impact and remember to stay ambitious.
“If you think you are too small to make an impact, try sleeping with a mosquito in the room”
The Inaccurate & Misleading Terminology of Global North vs Global South
Dr. Dimiter Toskov
Dr Toshkov is an Associate Professor at the Institute of Public Administration at Leiden University. In 2018, the Associate Professor released an article criticizing the popular terminology of Global South and the geographic determinism that it leads to.
To contribute to the discussion on Colonialism in the 21st Century, Dr Toshkov addresses the inaccurate nature of the terms Global North and Global South and the repercussions of using such homogenized and misleading terminologies in everyday language.
Dr Toshkov is an Associate Professor at the Institute of Public Administration at Leiden University. In 2018, the Associate Professor released an article criticizing the popular terminology of Global South and the geographic determinism that it leads to.
To contribute to the discussion on Colonialism in the 21st Century, Dr Toshkov addresses the inaccurate nature of the terms Global North and Global South and the repercussions of using such homogenized and misleading terminologies in everyday language.
https://youtu.be/1V2IPnfIPU8
Colonial heritage has long been regarded as "shared heritage". That term does not do justice to its history. It is time for a reassessment, which can give new impetus to the social debate on how to deal with colonial objects and collections.
- Esther Captain
Unspeakable Undertakings
Slavery in the Modern Age
- When thinking about colonialism, many think of the Scramble for Africa, the British Empire or the invasion of the American continent. In short, people think about events in the past but as this year’s Clio conference will reveal, colonialism has not yet left the stage. It still occurs in various forms and presses us to think about the way we interact with each other, our territories and even potential new territories in outer space. One aspect of colonialism that has tragically survived into our day and age is slavery. While it is less visible, there are still shockingly frequent incidents of sexual exploitation, forced labour, genocide and human trafficking. People are being abused, utilised and stripped of their humanity for the profit of others.
Cultural Genocide in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, China
Raising awareness is good but not enough. The Muslim Uighur population, a cultural minority in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR), has been subjected to multiple freedom restricting measures by the Chinese state. Since 2017, numerous journalists have become increasingly vigilant of the atrocities taking place in the XUAR. The disappearance of millions of Uighurs coincided with reports of rising securitisation in the region, turning it into an Orwellian surveillance state. Vast electronic surveillance systems monitor Uighur ‘loyalty’ to the homogenous-Han-striving Chinese government. “De-extremification Regulations'' prohibit the cultural minority to wear burkas or “abnormal” beards under the banner of spreading the “extremist thought.” Limitations to cultural and religious freedom became the norm for the Uighur population rather than the exception. Moreover, Chinese labelled “re-education camps'' serve to eradicate Uighur identity. Detainees are subjected to surveillance, religious restrictions, forced sterilisation, rape, and torture. For all too long the Chinese government managed to cover its human rights violations against the cultural minority. It denied any accusations and asserted for a significant period that it did not know about the delinquencies. Now, the Chinese government uses the global war on terror as a means to justify the ‘necessary’ crackdown to prevent the three evils: religious extremism, separatism, and terrorism. Meanwhile, IGOs and NGOs have been raising awareness, but the widespread and circulation of reports seems to be slow and action of the EU is increasing but has been lagging behind.
Raising awareness is good but not enough. The Muslim Uighur population, a cultural minority in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR), has been subjected to multiple freedom restricting measures by the Chinese state. Since 2017, numerous journalists have become increasingly vigilant of the atrocities taking place in the XUAR. The disappearance of millions of Uighurs coincided with reports of rising securitisation in the region, turning it into an Orwellian surveillance state. Vast electronic surveillance systems monitor Uighur ‘loyalty’ to the homogenous-Han-striving Chinese government. “De-extremification Regulations'' prohibit the cultural minority to wear burkas or “abnormal” beards under the banner of spreading the “extremist thought.” Limitations to cultural and religious freedom became the norm for the Uighur population rather than the exception. Moreover, Chinese labelled “re-education camps'' serve to eradicate Uighur identity. Detainees are subjected to surveillance, religious restrictions, forced sterilisation, rape, and torture. For all too long the Chinese government managed to cover its human rights violations against the cultural minority. It denied any accusations and asserted for a significant period that it did not know about the delinquencies. Now, the Chinese government uses the global war on terror as a means to justify the ‘necessary’ crackdown to prevent the three evils: religious extremism, separatism, and terrorism. Meanwhile, IGOs and NGOs have been raising awareness, but the widespread and circulation of reports seems to be slow and action of the EU is increasing but has been lagging behind.
Sexual exploitation of Indigenous Women in CanadaWomen all around the world are under attack: 1-in-3 women are either subjected to physical and/or sexual intimate partner or nonpartner sexual violence in their lifetime. All too often, men are not being brought to justice for what they did. The code of safety and protection many women practice, i.e., not walking home alone at night-time has become a necessity. In Canada, Indigenous women struggle with sexual assault as well as having to survive the colonial Canadian legacy: they are 12 times more likely than non-Indigenous women to face sexual harassment, abuse, and/or violence. The United Nations calls violence against women a pandemic, but the pandemic Indigenous women face is a genocidal one and there is not being much done about it. Canada’s colonial legacy has forced Indigenous women and girls into dangerous and precarious social and economic conditions, making them especially vulnerable to different kinds of violence ranging from sexual abuse to human trafficking. News coverage on the exceptionally dire realities Indigenous women face is limited. Often cases of sexual exploitation of Indigenous women and girls are published years later. During the Sixties Scoop, ranging from the 1950s to the 1980s, thousands of Indigenous children were taken from their families and placed into non-Indigenous homes. It is only now that reports from those times are being published and perpetrators held to account. New cases of human trafficking are increasing, and the Canadian legacy system remains largely silent. The root sources of the vulnerabilities must be addressed, and Indigenous peoples empowered.
Forced labour in Qatar
Even with the world on standstill in terms of anything involving more than two households, preparations for the World Cup 2022 in Qatar are in full swing. Unfortunately, this is no cause for celebrations. With a population of only 2.6 million, the country heavily relies on migrant workers for anything, but especially for the construction of the massive stadiums needed to make everyone’s favourite sports event possible. However, it is high time to seriously reconsider whether one should support the ball-kicking this time around. Migrant workers on sites related to the World Cup do not only suffer bad working conditions, they are being subjected to practices amounting to forced labour according to international law. Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have published about the dire situation for years. They found that migrant workers often have their passports being confiscated by employers, making them unable to leave the country or change to a different job. Often, employers are responsible for providing legal residence permits for their employees from abroad. When employers fail to equip migrant workers with said permits, those workers are unable to leave the construction sites and camps they are housed in. When they try to complain and enforce their rights, many employers threaten to deduct salaries and hand the workers over to the Qatari police. And even without raising their voice, workers rarely receive the full wage on the appropriate date. Employers are frequently found to strategically hold back wages as “security deposits” which is another practice deemed “forced labour” by the International Labour Organisation. Although the Qatari government has promised to improve the situation on various occasions, real change has yet to come.
Even with the world on standstill in terms of anything involving more than two households, preparations for the World Cup 2022 in Qatar are in full swing. Unfortunately, this is no cause for celebrations. With a population of only 2.6 million, the country heavily relies on migrant workers for anything, but especially for the construction of the massive stadiums needed to make everyone’s favourite sports event possible. However, it is high time to seriously reconsider whether one should support the ball-kicking this time around. Migrant workers on sites related to the World Cup do not only suffer bad working conditions, they are being subjected to practices amounting to forced labour according to international law. Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have published about the dire situation for years. They found that migrant workers often have their passports being confiscated by employers, making them unable to leave the country or change to a different job. Often, employers are responsible for providing legal residence permits for their employees from abroad. When employers fail to equip migrant workers with said permits, those workers are unable to leave the construction sites and camps they are housed in. When they try to complain and enforce their rights, many employers threaten to deduct salaries and hand the workers over to the Qatari police. And even without raising their voice, workers rarely receive the full wage on the appropriate date. Employers are frequently found to strategically hold back wages as “security deposits” which is another practice deemed “forced labour” by the International Labour Organisation. Although the Qatari government has promised to improve the situation on various occasions, real change has yet to come.
Human trafficking of migrantsHuman migration has always existed and will always exist. In the search for a better life for themselves and their families, people endure extreme hardships on their journeys. Families get separated, children and youths end up by themselves and there is often no one protecting and keeping track of the migration streams. All too easily, criminals can exploit this situation and take advantage of vulnerable migrants. And we are not “just” talking about robberies here. Human trafficking and migrant smuggling are widespread and organised into networks for the purpose of making a profit off of the migrants. Human traffickers might make empty promises about jobs, education or other opportunities to gain the trust of migrants, who then find themselves captured and being exploited in various forms for the profit of the traffickers. There are very few governments able or willing to prevent such abuse. The International Organisation for Migration calls for the recognition that migration flows are inevitable parts of a globalised world and therefore, safe migration pathways need to be created and enforced, while fighting and mitigating the causes of unsafe migration. How little has been achieved so far was shown by the dramatic events in Libya in 2019 (?), when videos showed evidence of migrants being sold as slaves in Libyan refugee and detention camps. While some governments have made efforts to pull people out of those camps, the structural underlying causes of migration as well as the unsafe nature of the path from sub-Saharan Africa towards Europe, which many migrants follow, have not been effectively addressed.
From China to Canada to Qatar to Libya to Europe: human trafficking, the exploitation of migrant workers, children, women, and cultural minorities are the realities taking place on this unparalleled earth that formed around 4.54 billion years ago, innocent and naïve about what would later happen on its terrain. Yet, while earth keeps the beginning of its life a secret, the beginning of modern slavery and (sexual) exploitation has never been one. It has been existing for too long and has been persisting into the modern age too ruthlessly. Not needlessly to say, an urgent change is needed, which will only come about if people unite, raise awareness, and jointly elicit a shift towards a better world.
Written by Carla Kiel and Julia Bogdanow from the Checks & Balances committee 2021
Volunteer Tourism: A Manifestation of Colonialism Today
Especially in our generation, a gap year in which we work as volunteers in a country of the Global South has become quite a common thing. If you have not done one yourself, surely you can think of a friend, relative, or acquaintance who has. But have you ever thought about the act critically? Have you maybe even regretted your decision to make this experience? Since it has become such a normalized thing in contemporary times, it becomes so important to not only see the positive sides of volunteering, but also the problems that arise with it.
What Stands Behind Volunteer Tourism?
Volunteer tourism, or “voluntourism,” describes the action of individuals who travel to countries in the Global South to volunteer in local communities. This practice emerged relatively recently, in the 1980s, as an alternative to mass tourism. Often, it is claimed that volunteer tourism benefits both volunteers and the communities that host them. Furthermore, it intends to be pro-poor and long-term. The growing popularity of volunteer tourism represents a shift in tourism practice and tourism philosophy; away from focusing solely on making external profit through mass tourism and towards the idea that tourism can and should also benefit local communities. Voluntourism activities include, among other things, teaching children, assisting in the creation of business models, participating in environmental regeneration projects, and building up communities in terms of housing. Volunteer tourists are mostly young people between the ages of 18 and 30, and the length of their stay can range from a few weeks to a couple of months. The majority of these alternative tourists prefer to visit countries in the Global South. Many volunteer tourists are motivated by a desire to learn about new cultures and people, to assist those in need, or to learn new skills (Pastran, 2014).
Applying a Postcolonial Lens
Many critical postcolonial scholars see alternative tourism as a form of colonialism that reinforces global structures of inequality and power relations. Moreover, it may perpetuate cultural stereotypes between volunteers and host communities, which can be extremely harmful to the locals (Brown & Hall, 2008). Echtner and Prasad provide a useful typology to describe the way that many volunteer organizations use to frame and market voluntary services. The three most commonly used colonial myths include the "Myth of the Unchanged," "Myth of the Unrestrained," and "Myth of the Uncivilized" (Echtner & Prasad, 2003). The replication of these narratives emphasizes certain binaries between the Global North and the Global South and contributes to the maintenance of global geopolitical power structures. In other words, these representations are inherently colonial, and they explicitly use these narratives to construct a specific image of people in the Global South who require the assistance of someone from the Global North (Echtner & Prasad, 2003). These colonial assumptions are what motivates these tourists to participate in projects in the Global South, as well as what leads them to believe that unqualified and inexperienced Westerners can "educate" and "develop" people in the Global South (Pastran, 2014). This is further demonstrated by the fact that less than 10% of volunteer “teaching” positions necessitate some form of education training (Callan & Thomas, 2005).
Volunteer tourism, or “voluntourism,” describes the action of individuals who travel to countries in the Global South to volunteer in local communities. This practice emerged relatively recently, in the 1980s, as an alternative to mass tourism. Often, it is claimed that volunteer tourism benefits both volunteers and the communities that host them. Furthermore, it intends to be pro-poor and long-term. The growing popularity of volunteer tourism represents a shift in tourism practice and tourism philosophy; away from focusing solely on making external profit through mass tourism and towards the idea that tourism can and should also benefit local communities. Voluntourism activities include, among other things, teaching children, assisting in the creation of business models, participating in environmental regeneration projects, and building up communities in terms of housing. Volunteer tourists are mostly young people between the ages of 18 and 30, and the length of their stay can range from a few weeks to a couple of months. The majority of these alternative tourists prefer to visit countries in the Global South. Many volunteer tourists are motivated by a desire to learn about new cultures and people, to assist those in need, or to learn new skills (Pastran, 2014).
Applying a Postcolonial Lens
Many critical postcolonial scholars see alternative tourism as a form of colonialism that reinforces global structures of inequality and power relations. Moreover, it may perpetuate cultural stereotypes between volunteers and host communities, which can be extremely harmful to the locals (Brown & Hall, 2008). Echtner and Prasad provide a useful typology to describe the way that many volunteer organizations use to frame and market voluntary services. The three most commonly used colonial myths include the "Myth of the Unchanged," "Myth of the Unrestrained," and "Myth of the Uncivilized" (Echtner & Prasad, 2003). The replication of these narratives emphasizes certain binaries between the Global North and the Global South and contributes to the maintenance of global geopolitical power structures. In other words, these representations are inherently colonial, and they explicitly use these narratives to construct a specific image of people in the Global South who require the assistance of someone from the Global North (Echtner & Prasad, 2003). These colonial assumptions are what motivates these tourists to participate in projects in the Global South, as well as what leads them to believe that unqualified and inexperienced Westerners can "educate" and "develop" people in the Global South (Pastran, 2014). This is further demonstrated by the fact that less than 10% of volunteer “teaching” positions necessitate some form of education training (Callan & Thomas, 2005).
Only 10% of volunteer teaching requires educational training
- Callan & Thomas
Can Voluntourism be Anti-Colonial?
However, there are many voices arguing that voluntourism does not have to be inherently colonial. They argue that if volunteers are properly prepared and taught about colonialism and the ongoing unequal power relations between them and local communities, the benefits can be maximized while the negative effects on local communities are greatly reduced (Wearing, 2001). Although this allows for self-reflection and allows volunteers to question the assumptions that underpin their desire to help “poor people” in the Global South, the problem of colonialism persists. Questioning eurocentric worldviews is insufficient, because the act of going to the Global South as a person with privileges to help people remains colonial. The greatest benefits are still experienced by volunteers who learn the most from this experience, either way. As a result, the assumptions, while challenged, are reinforced once more, and the structures of unequal power, oppression, and privilege are fortified.
Voluntourism Increases Global Unequal Power Structures
Most importantly, this phenomenon of volunteer tourism exacerbates global inequalities between the Global South and the Global North. Volunteer tourism, by definition, brings economically powerful tourists to places where people are economically weaker. Tourists benefit from these projects in the form of new experiences, increased self-esteem, and possibly career advancement because these projects look good on a CV. However, the people of the local communities hardly benefit from these projects or may even be harmed by them, as the European example is presented to them as the correct way to develop and live. It may also increase their reliance on these tourists, as well as taking away jobs of local employees. In this respect, volunteer tourism increases inequality within global power relationships, allowing the powerful to become even more powerful while potentially worsening the situation of the less powerful (Pastran, 2014).
However, there are many voices arguing that voluntourism does not have to be inherently colonial. They argue that if volunteers are properly prepared and taught about colonialism and the ongoing unequal power relations between them and local communities, the benefits can be maximized while the negative effects on local communities are greatly reduced (Wearing, 2001). Although this allows for self-reflection and allows volunteers to question the assumptions that underpin their desire to help “poor people” in the Global South, the problem of colonialism persists. Questioning eurocentric worldviews is insufficient, because the act of going to the Global South as a person with privileges to help people remains colonial. The greatest benefits are still experienced by volunteers who learn the most from this experience, either way. As a result, the assumptions, while challenged, are reinforced once more, and the structures of unequal power, oppression, and privilege are fortified.
Voluntourism Increases Global Unequal Power Structures
Most importantly, this phenomenon of volunteer tourism exacerbates global inequalities between the Global South and the Global North. Volunteer tourism, by definition, brings economically powerful tourists to places where people are economically weaker. Tourists benefit from these projects in the form of new experiences, increased self-esteem, and possibly career advancement because these projects look good on a CV. However, the people of the local communities hardly benefit from these projects or may even be harmed by them, as the European example is presented to them as the correct way to develop and live. It may also increase their reliance on these tourists, as well as taking away jobs of local employees. In this respect, volunteer tourism increases inequality within global power relationships, allowing the powerful to become even more powerful while potentially worsening the situation of the less powerful (Pastran, 2014).
It becomes clear that if we have enough courage to engage with the topic critically, there is no way in contemporary power structures to conduct the experience of voluntourism in a manner that benefits both communities. It comes down to admitting that the ‘volunteer’ service, which sounds so noble, is actually something we primarily do for our own benefit. For many of us, this might be a disappointing realization, but in the end, it is important to be aware of this issue and internalize this, to even find a starting point for change.
Bibliography
Brown, F. & Hall, D. (2008). Tourism and development in the Global South: the issues. Third World Quarterly, 29(5), 839–849.
Callanan, M. & Thomas, S. (2005). Volunteer tourism- deconstructing volunteer activities within a dynamic environment. In Novelli, M. (Ed.), Niche tourism: contemporary issues, trends and cases (pp. 183-200). New York: El Sevier.
Echtner, C.M. & Prasad, P. (2003). The context of Third World tourism marketing. Annals of Tourism Research, 30 (3), 660-682.
Pastran, S.H. (2014). Volunteer tourism: a postcolonial approach. University of Saskatchewan Undergraduate Research Journal, 1(1), 45-57.
Wearing, S.L. (2001). Volunteer tourism: experiences that make a difference. Oxon: CABI Publishing.
Brown, F. & Hall, D. (2008). Tourism and development in the Global South: the issues. Third World Quarterly, 29(5), 839–849.
Callanan, M. & Thomas, S. (2005). Volunteer tourism- deconstructing volunteer activities within a dynamic environment. In Novelli, M. (Ed.), Niche tourism: contemporary issues, trends and cases (pp. 183-200). New York: El Sevier.
Echtner, C.M. & Prasad, P. (2003). The context of Third World tourism marketing. Annals of Tourism Research, 30 (3), 660-682.
Pastran, S.H. (2014). Volunteer tourism: a postcolonial approach. University of Saskatchewan Undergraduate Research Journal, 1(1), 45-57.
Wearing, S.L. (2001). Volunteer tourism: experiences that make a difference. Oxon: CABI Publishing.
The Injustice of Just War
Can humanitarian intervention be justified?
In 1977, the American political theorist Michael Walzer released his famous book ‘Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations’. Today, this book is claimed to be one of the classics within the field of International Relations, and an essential part of the discourse on humanitarian intervention. In his book, the theorist presents three conditions in which foreign intervention is justifiable. This book opened up an important debate, which will also be discussed during the Clio Conference this year. Can humanitarian intervention be morally justifiable if it is under the guise of maintaining colonial power relations? Too often in history, western countries have intervened in Third world countries in order to restore peace or to bring democracy. These interventions not only have harming political and social repercussions, they also restore former colonial power relations. The theory of Just War presented by Walzer, falls fallacy to a western bias and in doing so provides a platform that condones neo-colonial practices.
Let’s dive into Just War theory as presented by Walzer. The foundation of his theory of morality is based on a certain fit between the government and its community of people. This community is formed through a social contract between the people, and consists of a common life, namely a common culture, religion, norms and values. This notion of a community has a lot in common a Westphalian understanding of a nation state - a state consisting of one common culture or nationality. The nation-state is a Eurocentric view of the state and takes no notice to colonial legacies. After decolonization, this Westphalian concept of the modern nation-state was imposed on Third World countries as universal principle. However, the historical or rather artificial state formation of former colonies as a result of hap hazardous territorial distribution by imperial powers is not taken into account. The formation of a modern nation-state consisting of a homogenous community is nothing but a myth for former colonies. This westernized view of state formation becomes problematic when Walzer bases his theory around such a euro-centric concept.
In his book ‘Just and Unjust Wars’ Walzer provides three conditions in which it is morally just for a foreign country to intervene.
“When a particular state includes more than one political community, […], when one of its communities or nations is in active revolt, foreign powers can come to the assistance of the rebels.”
“When a single community is disrupted by civil war, and when one foreign power intervenes in support of this or that party, other powers can rightfully intervene in support of the other party.”
“Interventions can be justified whenever a government is engaged in the massacre or enslavement of its own citizens or subjects.”
As can be seen through these conditions, the right to intervene depend on this western understanding of the fit between a government and its community. You cannot say that these conditions are very limited, which Walzer claims they are. The first condition states that foreign intervention is justified in states consisting of multiple communities, provided that there is an active revolt. As mentioned before, the apparent fit between the government and its people is based on a Westphalian understanding of the nation-state. A foreign state can without difficulty argue that a state with hostilities between various groups, possesses no legitimacy due to fact that the state consists of multiple communities that clash. In this manner, foreign intervention is not limited to highly exceptional cases as there are many states in Africa, the Middle East and Asia that have to deal with violence between various ethnic or religious groups, consequential to their colonial history. As a result, Walzer allows former imperial rulers to use internal conflict within a foreign state as an excuse to justify neo-colonial practices and to restore colonial relations.
The second condition is the so-called counter-intervention. Apparently according to Walzer, any third party can intervene without moral repercussions, when the principle of non-intervention is already overthrown by a different party. These interventions are often at the backdrop of obtaining or keeping a sphere of influence in the region, as can be seen from various historical examples of proxy-wars during the Cold War. There has to be more conditionality besides the solely premise that another state already intervened. Intervention in order to counter another state, in itself, can never be morally justifiable since it often reflects a foreign state’s self-interest in retaining power relations. In the wording of this condition, Walzer condones wars to be fought out of power relations on another states soil. Therefore, these conditions condone imperial powers to intervene for the sole purpose of restoring power relations without any conditionality within the Just War tradition to prevent this from happening.
Furthermore, Walzer relies on the western countries to play the role of police in the international system. According to Walzer, states have police powers not only in relation to their own community, but also to intervene in the affairs of members of the international community. To prove the western bias of Walzer, I would like to refer to the following quote from his book:
“They (referring to Third World countries) will depend on global powers like the United States and the European Community.” […] “Whenever the filthy work can be stopped, it should be stopped. And if not by us, the supposedly decent people of this world, then by whom? "
Walzer promotes Western powers to function as police force around the world. Not surprisingly, the conditionality as well as the foundation of Just War theory is based on a Westphalian premise without
regard to colonial legacies. Walzer tries to promote a universal principle of justice around engaging in war, however, for the execution of his principles he relies on one country, namely, the United States of America.
For an intervention to be morally just it must not be tainted by any form of neo-colonial practices. Therefore, local solutions ought to be promoted, rather than account for the police action of Western states. Furthermore, The conditions that Walzer lays down are simply too broad and pay little attention to postcolonial conditions. In justifying interference merely on the bases of a lack of one community or to counter another third party, neo-colonial practices are easily morally justifiable. The conditions ought to allow intervention only in extreme cases of immorality and injustice, limited to “massacre, enslavement, or expulsion ”. In order to promote a moral code of conduct that is truly just, intervention must not be tainted by neo-colonialism. Foreign interference must not become the norm, but rather the exception.
Let’s dive into Just War theory as presented by Walzer. The foundation of his theory of morality is based on a certain fit between the government and its community of people. This community is formed through a social contract between the people, and consists of a common life, namely a common culture, religion, norms and values. This notion of a community has a lot in common a Westphalian understanding of a nation state - a state consisting of one common culture or nationality. The nation-state is a Eurocentric view of the state and takes no notice to colonial legacies. After decolonization, this Westphalian concept of the modern nation-state was imposed on Third World countries as universal principle. However, the historical or rather artificial state formation of former colonies as a result of hap hazardous territorial distribution by imperial powers is not taken into account. The formation of a modern nation-state consisting of a homogenous community is nothing but a myth for former colonies. This westernized view of state formation becomes problematic when Walzer bases his theory around such a euro-centric concept.
In his book ‘Just and Unjust Wars’ Walzer provides three conditions in which it is morally just for a foreign country to intervene.
“When a particular state includes more than one political community, […], when one of its communities or nations is in active revolt, foreign powers can come to the assistance of the rebels.”
“When a single community is disrupted by civil war, and when one foreign power intervenes in support of this or that party, other powers can rightfully intervene in support of the other party.”
“Interventions can be justified whenever a government is engaged in the massacre or enslavement of its own citizens or subjects.”
As can be seen through these conditions, the right to intervene depend on this western understanding of the fit between a government and its community. You cannot say that these conditions are very limited, which Walzer claims they are. The first condition states that foreign intervention is justified in states consisting of multiple communities, provided that there is an active revolt. As mentioned before, the apparent fit between the government and its people is based on a Westphalian understanding of the nation-state. A foreign state can without difficulty argue that a state with hostilities between various groups, possesses no legitimacy due to fact that the state consists of multiple communities that clash. In this manner, foreign intervention is not limited to highly exceptional cases as there are many states in Africa, the Middle East and Asia that have to deal with violence between various ethnic or religious groups, consequential to their colonial history. As a result, Walzer allows former imperial rulers to use internal conflict within a foreign state as an excuse to justify neo-colonial practices and to restore colonial relations.
The second condition is the so-called counter-intervention. Apparently according to Walzer, any third party can intervene without moral repercussions, when the principle of non-intervention is already overthrown by a different party. These interventions are often at the backdrop of obtaining or keeping a sphere of influence in the region, as can be seen from various historical examples of proxy-wars during the Cold War. There has to be more conditionality besides the solely premise that another state already intervened. Intervention in order to counter another state, in itself, can never be morally justifiable since it often reflects a foreign state’s self-interest in retaining power relations. In the wording of this condition, Walzer condones wars to be fought out of power relations on another states soil. Therefore, these conditions condone imperial powers to intervene for the sole purpose of restoring power relations without any conditionality within the Just War tradition to prevent this from happening.
Furthermore, Walzer relies on the western countries to play the role of police in the international system. According to Walzer, states have police powers not only in relation to their own community, but also to intervene in the affairs of members of the international community. To prove the western bias of Walzer, I would like to refer to the following quote from his book:
“They (referring to Third World countries) will depend on global powers like the United States and the European Community.” […] “Whenever the filthy work can be stopped, it should be stopped. And if not by us, the supposedly decent people of this world, then by whom? "
Walzer promotes Western powers to function as police force around the world. Not surprisingly, the conditionality as well as the foundation of Just War theory is based on a Westphalian premise without
regard to colonial legacies. Walzer tries to promote a universal principle of justice around engaging in war, however, for the execution of his principles he relies on one country, namely, the United States of America.
For an intervention to be morally just it must not be tainted by any form of neo-colonial practices. Therefore, local solutions ought to be promoted, rather than account for the police action of Western states. Furthermore, The conditions that Walzer lays down are simply too broad and pay little attention to postcolonial conditions. In justifying interference merely on the bases of a lack of one community or to counter another third party, neo-colonial practices are easily morally justifiable. The conditions ought to allow intervention only in extreme cases of immorality and injustice, limited to “massacre, enslavement, or expulsion ”. In order to promote a moral code of conduct that is truly just, intervention must not be tainted by neo-colonialism. Foreign interference must not become the norm, but rather the exception.
By Bart van Amersfoort
“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” Luke 23:34
If we put ourselves in the shoes of Bartolomé de las Casas in the year 1536, we can only imagine the excitement he must have felt; being on an exploration to the New World and looking over the green, mystical highlands of Guatemala, this vast and unexplored land. Las Casas, a Spanish friar, had taken the arduous journey with a benevolent mission: save the native Maya tribes from damnation and convert them to Catholicism, the one true faith. What followed were centuries of colonial exploitation and the enslavement of the Indians.
The history of Western domination and colonialism in Guatemala started already in 1523 with Pedro de Alvarado, a violent and cruel man who fought the various Maya kingdoms that remained in the highlands. In 1524, de Alvarado defeated one of the two biggest nations, the K’iche, which marked the beginning of the end of Maya self-rule. However, many of the defeated people were not yet ready to give up their freedom. Struggling with the Spanish conquerors, the remnants of the tribes launched guerilla wars from the jungle. This is when Bartolomé de las Casas entered the scene. Appalled by the actions of his countrymen, Las Casas started a mission to pacify the locals and make them accept the Catholic faith and Spanish rulership. Surprisingly, Las Casas succeeded within three years to bring all tribes under Spanish control.
But of course, these Spaniards did not have their own interest in mind. “Who is a fool shall serve the wise”, wrote Juan Ginés de Sepulveda, citing the Book of Proverbs. He described the expedition into the New World less as a conquest than as “Christian charity” that liberated the natives from their primitive lives, their funny customs and traditions, and their incompetent rulers. By that, he paved the way for making the native people subject to the Spanish and exposing them to century-long exploitation and assimilation into the Spanish culture and religion. In reality, the ‘universal’ idea of Christianity worked to the advantage of the Spanish crown which was able to gain gold and slaves from its colonies. What a great act of charity.
Today, Las Casas, de Sepulveda, and the colonists who followed them are gone. They made space for different, but, according to their own declaration, equally benevolent forces. Forces not preaching Christianity but the free market. The developing world, with insufficient and outdated knowledge of economics, needs to be taught by us. We adapted the Book of Proverbs to: “Who is a fool shall learn from the West”, and we changed our concept of backwardness from meaning not knowing the one true God to not knowing good economic policies. So, once again, it is on the West to save the culturally retarded. The underlying notion stays the same. Where Las Casas believed to come with a universally true idea, namely that Christianity was the one true face which would save the Mayan tribes from damnation, so do many Western institutions think that free trade is indispensable and will universally lead to benefits for the ‘underdeveloped’. Once again, every intervention is pursued for the benefit of the natives or what we have come to call the Third World. The Indians are in need of our help and have to be saved by us, the more developed and civilized ones. At least, that’s the narrative.
Instead of the gospel, we have become preachers of free trade, which is meant to stimulate growth, drive development, and ultimately, eradicate poverty. According to the WTO, that’s just “common sense”. But is it really? In academia, there has long been a debate on free trade’s actual ability to keep its promise, and Western governments themselves have never fully liberated their markets, never stopped subsidizing their vulnerable industries. Meanwhile, institutions such as the WTO, World Bank, and IMF label exactly these practices employed by the developed countries as “bad policies” when used by developing countries. So, who actually benefits from our ‘universal’ ideas? Instead of using direct colonialism, we invented institutions with binding frameworks such as the WTO which work in subtle ways without territorial domination. Nevertheless, these structures exploit the resources and labor of developing nations to the advantage of the global North. We, the Western World, present free trade as a universally true and reliable strategy for development and put developed and developing countries in a father-child-like relationship. We use free trade, just like de Sepulveda used religion 500 years ago, to justify the exertion of Western dominance.
Ironically, today’s victims of Western universalism are the direct ancestors of de Sepulveda’s victims. After suffering and enduring the domination of the Spanish, the K’iche people, an ethnic group from the Guatemala highlands, face pressure from transnational corporations. The K’iche, having a different idea of what development means and deep cultural and religious ties to their land, try to protect their environment from economic exploitation. Contrary to that, encouraged by Western free-trade policies, foreign transnational corporations invest in mining, hydroelectric dams, and monocultures in Guatemala. Too bad for the K’iche that they are no Christians. Their attachment to the land does not qualify as religious to us, and, therefore, does not deserve special protection. According to the United States, the leader of the Western World, there have been “no reports of abuses of religious freedom” in Guatemala. Well, if they say so. It is the West who decides what qualifies as religious, and it is the West who defines what development means. And just like a miracle, our universal definitions always seem to work out to the West’s benefit.
As K’iche representative Lolita Chávez puts it: “The West’s ignorance of the ‘other’ is derived from the mentality of colonizing patriarchal superiority”. With religion in the 16th century and free trade and development in the 20th and 21st century, the West only sees its own ideals and values as universal and just. Foucault was right to say that usually such kind of discourses are used to disguise and perpetuate existing domination and exploitative relations. Because exploiting and dominating is exactly what the West does. Favorably while articulating its own normative superiority.
Let’s put ourselves once again in the shoes of Las Casas, right before he arrived in the New World. I think it is safe to say that he truly believed to do “the right thing”.
But can we honestly claim the same for ourselves today? Have we not learned anything from history? Can we say that we do not know how the wealth of the North is built on a structural system of exploitation of the global South? Do we still think that our system of living and our idea of development is the only one valid and universal? Do we really believe that we are helping the ‘others’?
In his book “History of the Indies”, Las Casas writes: “I came to realize that black slavery was just as unjust as Indian slavery... and I was not sure that my ignorance and good faith could secure me in the eyes of God”.
Las Casas realized his mistake and his guilt. When will we come to realize and accept ours?
The history of Western domination and colonialism in Guatemala started already in 1523 with Pedro de Alvarado, a violent and cruel man who fought the various Maya kingdoms that remained in the highlands. In 1524, de Alvarado defeated one of the two biggest nations, the K’iche, which marked the beginning of the end of Maya self-rule. However, many of the defeated people were not yet ready to give up their freedom. Struggling with the Spanish conquerors, the remnants of the tribes launched guerilla wars from the jungle. This is when Bartolomé de las Casas entered the scene. Appalled by the actions of his countrymen, Las Casas started a mission to pacify the locals and make them accept the Catholic faith and Spanish rulership. Surprisingly, Las Casas succeeded within three years to bring all tribes under Spanish control.
But of course, these Spaniards did not have their own interest in mind. “Who is a fool shall serve the wise”, wrote Juan Ginés de Sepulveda, citing the Book of Proverbs. He described the expedition into the New World less as a conquest than as “Christian charity” that liberated the natives from their primitive lives, their funny customs and traditions, and their incompetent rulers. By that, he paved the way for making the native people subject to the Spanish and exposing them to century-long exploitation and assimilation into the Spanish culture and religion. In reality, the ‘universal’ idea of Christianity worked to the advantage of the Spanish crown which was able to gain gold and slaves from its colonies. What a great act of charity.
Today, Las Casas, de Sepulveda, and the colonists who followed them are gone. They made space for different, but, according to their own declaration, equally benevolent forces. Forces not preaching Christianity but the free market. The developing world, with insufficient and outdated knowledge of economics, needs to be taught by us. We adapted the Book of Proverbs to: “Who is a fool shall learn from the West”, and we changed our concept of backwardness from meaning not knowing the one true God to not knowing good economic policies. So, once again, it is on the West to save the culturally retarded. The underlying notion stays the same. Where Las Casas believed to come with a universally true idea, namely that Christianity was the one true face which would save the Mayan tribes from damnation, so do many Western institutions think that free trade is indispensable and will universally lead to benefits for the ‘underdeveloped’. Once again, every intervention is pursued for the benefit of the natives or what we have come to call the Third World. The Indians are in need of our help and have to be saved by us, the more developed and civilized ones. At least, that’s the narrative.
Instead of the gospel, we have become preachers of free trade, which is meant to stimulate growth, drive development, and ultimately, eradicate poverty. According to the WTO, that’s just “common sense”. But is it really? In academia, there has long been a debate on free trade’s actual ability to keep its promise, and Western governments themselves have never fully liberated their markets, never stopped subsidizing their vulnerable industries. Meanwhile, institutions such as the WTO, World Bank, and IMF label exactly these practices employed by the developed countries as “bad policies” when used by developing countries. So, who actually benefits from our ‘universal’ ideas? Instead of using direct colonialism, we invented institutions with binding frameworks such as the WTO which work in subtle ways without territorial domination. Nevertheless, these structures exploit the resources and labor of developing nations to the advantage of the global North. We, the Western World, present free trade as a universally true and reliable strategy for development and put developed and developing countries in a father-child-like relationship. We use free trade, just like de Sepulveda used religion 500 years ago, to justify the exertion of Western dominance.
Ironically, today’s victims of Western universalism are the direct ancestors of de Sepulveda’s victims. After suffering and enduring the domination of the Spanish, the K’iche people, an ethnic group from the Guatemala highlands, face pressure from transnational corporations. The K’iche, having a different idea of what development means and deep cultural and religious ties to their land, try to protect their environment from economic exploitation. Contrary to that, encouraged by Western free-trade policies, foreign transnational corporations invest in mining, hydroelectric dams, and monocultures in Guatemala. Too bad for the K’iche that they are no Christians. Their attachment to the land does not qualify as religious to us, and, therefore, does not deserve special protection. According to the United States, the leader of the Western World, there have been “no reports of abuses of religious freedom” in Guatemala. Well, if they say so. It is the West who decides what qualifies as religious, and it is the West who defines what development means. And just like a miracle, our universal definitions always seem to work out to the West’s benefit.
As K’iche representative Lolita Chávez puts it: “The West’s ignorance of the ‘other’ is derived from the mentality of colonizing patriarchal superiority”. With religion in the 16th century and free trade and development in the 20th and 21st century, the West only sees its own ideals and values as universal and just. Foucault was right to say that usually such kind of discourses are used to disguise and perpetuate existing domination and exploitative relations. Because exploiting and dominating is exactly what the West does. Favorably while articulating its own normative superiority.
Let’s put ourselves once again in the shoes of Las Casas, right before he arrived in the New World. I think it is safe to say that he truly believed to do “the right thing”.
But can we honestly claim the same for ourselves today? Have we not learned anything from history? Can we say that we do not know how the wealth of the North is built on a structural system of exploitation of the global South? Do we still think that our system of living and our idea of development is the only one valid and universal? Do we really believe that we are helping the ‘others’?
In his book “History of the Indies”, Las Casas writes: “I came to realize that black slavery was just as unjust as Indian slavery... and I was not sure that my ignorance and good faith could secure me in the eyes of God”.
Las Casas realized his mistake and his guilt. When will we come to realize and accept ours?
By Georg Schneider