I believe Amarta Sen’s theory – I believe that development is intimately tied to freedoms and human rights. I believe that “freedoms are not only the primary ends of development, they are also its principal means” (Sen, 10). I believe this so much that I carried Amarta Sen’s books with me in my sack when traveling throughout Uganda this summer.
However, development doesn’t automatically yield improvements in the human rights of citizens; in fact, it can be a tool of marginalization. If the development is not carried out with an eye towards human rights it is little more than a guise under which violations run abundant. I saw this myself in the hotels that were being constructed throughout Kampala for diplomats and heads of states visiting Uganda. The Ugandans building these monstrous hotels were paid $1,000 shillings a day – approximately 70 cents. With the cost of travel they barely broke even, returning to their semi-permanent residences with ceilings made of cardboard with some plantains to show for their efforts. This development was not propagating freedom; it was a tool of marginalization. I saw this theme develop in our readings as well.
o In Louisiana, environmentally negligent farmers monopolize on the natural resources while subjecting residents to severe health risks. Their ability to do this is perpetuated by government subsidies: “In jobs and incomes, the state usually ranks behind states that assess higher taxes and demand greater environmental responsibility from businesses. The bulk of Louisiana’s $350-million subsidy goes to heavy polluting manufacturers, who provide only 10 percent of the jobs in the state.” (Bullard, 92)
o Yet when President Bill Clinton visited Indonesia in November 1994, he made only a token effort to address the country’s human rights problem. Instead, he touted the benefits of free trade, sounding indeed more enlightened, more in tune with the spirit of the post – Cold War era than do those defenders of perfectionist trading policies who coat their rhetoric with “America first” chauvinism. But “free trade” as it is actually being practiced today is hardly free for any workers – in the United States or abroad – who have to accept the American corporate-fostered Indonesian, Chinese, or Korean workplace model as the price of keeping their jobs. (Enloe, 53)
o Those someones [stiching your shoes] are women, mostly Asian women who are supposed to believe that their “opportunity” to make sneakers for US companies is a sign of their country’s progress – just as a Russian woman’s chance to spend two month’s salary on a pair of shoes for her child allegedly symbolizes the new Russia. (Enloe, 44)
We must unite and call those out whose development occurs in socially irresponsible ways.
