File spoon-archives/postcolonial.archive/postcolonial_2001/postcolonial.0110, message 395


From: "Margaret Trawick" <trawick-AT-clear.net.nz>
Subject: re: response to Margaret Trawick and Salil Tripathi
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 19:58:53 +1300


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.


K. Correll -

I don't know if you are accusing me in particular of "wholesale condemnation
of 'the west'" et cetera.  But my reference to punitive damage laws in the US
should surely exonerate me of that charge.  If you are implying that I am unknowingly
contradicting myself, this is incorrect.  I know things are complicated.


As I recollect (correct me if I am wrong) Union Carbide insisted on being tried
in India for its crimes, precisely because it knew that under Indian law, it
could get off more easily. This is just one example of a multinational corporation
getting away with murder.  If Union Carbide had expected a better deal under
US law, it would have chosen to be tried there.  The problem with multinational
corporations, as I see it, is that ultimately, they are not accountable to anybody
for their actions, or at best, they can choose to whom they will be accountable,
as convenience suits them.

And of course, there are many good things about the US system of internal government.
 But, in terms of its foreign policy, and its waging of wars on foreign soil,
it is, like the multinationals, unaccountable to anybody.  Thus, with its tremendous
power, it poses a threat to the whole rest of the world.  No checks or balances
whatsoever curb this threat.

Imho, the one most important issue in the current crisis is not which "culture"
is better or worse, nor which country has a better or worse internal system
of government.  We have seen time and again that the US does not bring democracy
to the countries ruled by regimes against which it wages overt or covert war.
 Can anyone reasonably expect that the US will replace tyranny and poverty with
peace and prosperity in its current war against the Taliban and Osama bin Laden?
 Can anyone reasonably argue that multinational corporations have brought peace
and prosperity to the people of South Asia?  In my view, the answer to both
questions is the same.

Margaret Trawick




>In reference to Union Carbide Margaret said:
>
>"that is
>why, in the US, there is such a thing as punitive damages - to make it
>unprofitable for companies to put human lives at risk.  Not that this system

>always works, but it is something, at least."
>
>But wouldnt the creation/enforcement of such a system (punitive damages--a

>function of the judiciary) be the responsibility of, in this case, the
>Indian government?  And wouldn't the absence of such a system also be the

>responsibility of the Indian government, rather than Union Carbide, or the

>U.S., or "the west"?  Perhaps such a system or its equivalent may already

>exist in India, I don't know--Salil, perhaps you could help us out here?
>
>The larger point is that the knee-jerk, formulaic, wholesale condemnation of

>"the west," the U.S. and multinational corporatism specifically and
>capitalism as a whole, is reductive and facile.  And this reductivism
>obfuscates complex realities (of abuse, economics, legalities, and many 
>other issues) not only in India, but Sudan, Iraq (just to name a few of the

>locales recently discussed on the list) "the west" and everywhere.
>
>The potential for exploitation is huge in systems of "unfettered"
>capitalism--but the "fetters" (the elaborate checks-and-balances that in the

>U.S., for instance, have created paid vacations and sick time, the
>guaranteed eight-hour work day, lunch breaks, smoking breaks, health
>benefits and disability, workers compensation coverage, the right to
>unionize, child labor laws, OSHA, 401K plans--and punitive damages) have to

>be created, continually evolved, and enforced by individual cultures,
>societies, and governments.  In emerging markets such as China, the specter

>of exploitation, as I see it, will arise (is arising) not from the "inherent

>evils" of capitalism, but from a closed government which refuses the kind of

>public exchange that is crucial to creating ongoing reform and
>regulation--regulation which tempers capitalism, which can make a capitalist

>system work more humanely.  Ditto (and then some) for the totalitarian
>theocracies.
>
p

HTML VERSION:

K. Correll -

I don't know if you are accusing me in particular of "wholesale condemnation
of 'the west'" et cetera.  But my reference to punitive damage laws in the US
should surely exonerate me of that charge.  If you are implying that I am unknowingly
contradicting myself, this is incorrect.  I know things are complicated.


As I recollect (correct me if I am wrong) Union Carbide insisted on being tried
in India for its crimes, precisely because it knew that under Indian law, it
could get off more easily. This is just one example of a multinational corporation
getting away with murder.  If Union Carbide had expected a better deal under
US law, it would have chosen to be tried there.  The problem with multinational
corporations, as I see it, is that ultimately, they are not accountable to anybody
for their actions, or at best, they can choose to whom they will be accountable,
as convenience suits them.

And of course, there are many good things about the US system of internal government.
 But, in terms of its foreign policy, and its waging of wars on foreign soil,
it is, like the multinationals, unaccountable to anybody.  Thus, with its tremendous
power, it poses a threat to the whole rest of the world.  No checks or balances
whatsoever curb this threat.

Imho, the one most important issue in the current crisis is not which "culture"
is better or worse, nor which country has a better or worse internal system
of government.  We have seen time and again that the US does not bring democracy
to the countries ruled by regimes against which it wages overt or covert war.
 Can anyone reasonably expect that the US will replace tyranny and poverty with
peace and prosperity in its current war against the Taliban and Osama bin Laden?
 Can anyone reasonably argue that multinational corporations have brought peace
and prosperity to the people of South Asia?  In my view, the answer to both
questions is the same.

Margaret Trawick




>In reference to Union Carbide Margaret said:
>
>"that is
>why, in the US, there is such a thing as punitive damages - to make it
>unprofitable for companies to put human lives at risk.  Not that this system

>always works, but it is something, at least."
>
>But wouldnt the creation/enforcement of such a system (punitive damages--a

>function of the judiciary) be the responsibility of, in this case, the
>Indian government?  And wouldn't the absence of such a system also be the

>responsibility of the Indian government, rather than Union Carbide, or the

>U.S., or "the west"?  Perhaps such a system or its equivalent may already

>exist in India, I don't know--Salil, perhaps you could help us out here?
>
>The larger point is that the knee-jerk, formulaic, wholesale condemnation of

>"the west," the U.S. and multinational corporatism specifically and
>capitalism as a whole, is reductive and facile.  And this reductivism
>obfuscates complex realities (of abuse, economics, legalities, and many
>other issues) not only in India, but Sudan, Iraq (just to name a few of the

>locales recently discussed on the list) "the west" and everywhere.
>
>The potential for exploitation is huge in systems of "unfettered"
>capitalism--but the "fetters" (the elaborate checks-and-balances that in the

>U.S., for instance, have created paid vacations and sick time, the
>guaranteed eight-hour work day, lunch breaks, smoking breaks, health
>benefits and disability, workers compensation coverage, the right to
>unionize, child labor laws, OSHA, 401K plans--and punitive damages) have to

>be created, continually evolved, and enforced by individual cultures,
>societies, and governments.  In emerging markets such as China, the specter

>of exploitation, as I see it, will arise (is arising) not from the "inherent

>evils" of capitalism, but from a closed government which refuses the kind of

>public exchange that is crucial to creating ongoing reform and
>regulation--regulation which tempers capitalism, which can make a capitalist

>system work more humanely.  Ditto (and then some) for the totalitarian
>theocracies.
>
p
--- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005