The Street’s Eric Rosenbaum pins the blame of the 2nd guilty verdict on Russian Tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky, which allegedly had been manipulated, to globalization.
He writes, (bold emphasis mine)
In any event, if we have long ago left behind the Cold War and entered the age of globalization, it's pretty clear that globalization means turning a deaf ear to serious human rights and legal rights issues for trade partners like the US, Russia and China, or at least often being hard of hearing.
When a tycoon rots in prison because he was getting too powerful, and too democratic, or when a Nobel Prize winning political dissident is serving a long sentence and his family barred from going to Sweden to accept the Nobel on his behalf -- and yet the major US move in relation to China is to win a dispute at the World Trade Organization over the unfair support of China for its automobile tire manufacturers -- that's the lips speaking truth to the way the powerful act in the age of globalization, as opposed to the lip service that once again overflows with blabber as Khodorkovsky quietly read his book in the metal cage of the Russian court room.
We'll say thank you very much for that cheap plastic mobile for our baby's crib, China, and, thank you very much for the oil that's not coming from those unstable Arabs, Russia, and forget about Khodorkovsky until his next trial, and let Chinese democracy die a silent death. And of course, when it comes down to it, we'll hem and haw and we'll say it's not our place to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries -- except of course, when it's the internal affair of manufacturing car tires.
It’s certainly misleading to impute the seemingly untoward developments in Russia’s domestic political front to globalization since the current body politic of Russia has evolved around the dynamics of the previous polity (Lenin-Stalinism) compounded by the ongoing changes in the economic and international dimensions.
As Stratfor’s George Friedman notes, (bold highlights mine)
Glasnost, or openness, had as its price reducing the threat to the West. But the greater part of the puzzle was perestroika, or the restructuring of the Soviet economy. This was where the greatest risk came, since the entire social and political structure of the Soviet Union was built around a command economy. But that economy was no longer functioning, and without perestroika, all of the investment and technology transfer would be meaningless.
In other words, Russia’s politics have gravitated around the impulses of ‘command mentality’, which she has yet to slough off.
So with or without globalization, the so-called issues of ‘human rights and legal rights’ would still be in place, because of the embedded political structure that operates in Russia.
And perhaps it could even be under worse conditions if a political regime under isolationism had prevailed, since international pressures towards domestic policies would have been muted.
Myanmar and North Korea should be good examples of such isolationist paradigm. Incidentally according to Human Rights Risks Atlas 2011, among the highest “human rights” risk nations, Myanmar and North Korea ranks 5th and 9th respectively whereas Russia is ranked 14th.
The top 4 is DR Congo, Somalia, Pakistan and Sudan—obviously countries that have been least exposed to globalization.
As an aside, China is ranked 10th mostly due to recent geopolitical developments. According to African online,
China fell two places from last year’s ranking into tenth place. It is notable that these rankings were released on the day when China would not allow its’ citizens to see the Nobel Peace Prize Ceremony because Chinese political prisoner Liu was being honored. China is ranked worst or joint bottom of the league in several key classes.
These include violation categories such as freedom of speech, the press and religion, minority rights, judicial independence, and arbitrary arrest and detention.
Overall, to link globalization with human rights violations seem not only unfounded, but importantly, a strawman meant to score political talking points.
And here is the morality aspect.
If I decide not to patronize my neighbor’s store, who is reputed to be a wife beater, out of my perception of ethics, what then is my right to impose my sense of morality to the others who don’t share my views? Doing so would be playing into the hands of the same command mentality (human rights abuse) game which the author so abhors. And this would be tantamount to the proverbial ‘pot calling the kettle black.’
Lastly, it would be uncalled for to imply that globalization or growing free trade as politically inhumane. That’s because it would be in almost everyone’s self interest to see the others in good stead in order to promote his own.
Adam Smith wrote in his magnum opus, the Wealth of Nations, the dynamics of unintended social cooperation from the pursuit of one’s own interest.
He calls this the invisible hands, (bold emphasis mine)
As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestick industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the publick interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestick to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the publick good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.
And as we have earlier pointed out, the string of years of world peace have coincided with the growth in free trade. We seem to see the similar parallels in the growth of economic freedom and free trade along with reduction of human rights violation risks (China would be the exception rather than the rule).
Bottom line: In general, where people trade, social cooperation expands, where politics rule, social cooperation deteriorates.
