Published on Pambazuka News, by Tomaso Ferrando, June 20, 2012.
The state as an instrument of capital interests is providing cheap and disposable labour, land, and fiscal privileges to land grabbers.
Subverting the classic vision of the private-public power relationships, some African countries are repeating the same motto that an East European newspaper used on the occasion of the visit of the German chancellor in 1999: We forgive the crusaders and await the investors … //
… WHAT ‘PUBLIC’ AND WHAT ‘INTEREST’ IN THE DECLARATION OF PUBLIC INTEREST?
Taking as an example the 2012 report on villagization in Ethiopia by Human Right Watch provides the dramatic reconstruction of the ongoing process of resettlement that is taking place in the Gambella Region, and across the border between Ethiopia and Somalia, under the auspices of the Ethiopian government and its project of villagization for rural development. Undertaken with the official goals of guaranteeing to relocated populations ‘access to basic socioeconomic infrastructures […] and to bring socioeconomic & cultural transformation of the people’, the Gambella plan is part of a broader program of resettlement, that concerns 1.5 million people in four regions (Gambella, Afar, Somali, and Benishangul-Gumuz), more then 100,000 of which lived or are still living in the Gambella Region. On the basis of the data presented in the report, the decision of the federal government to intrusively exercise its sovereign power over its land and population, undoubtedly raises several doubts concerning the respect for national and international procedures in resettlements, the existence of the required Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) of the local population, the pledged voluntary character of the resettlement, the effectiveness of the compensation plans, and the subordination of people’s interests to the needs and wills of global investor. But, above all, it clearly demonstrates the potential of sovereignty as a legitimate coercive power over the population.
Although in the report the connection between large-scale agricultural development and land displacement is kept in the background and there is no direct connection with the 100,000 hectares of land that have already been leased by the Federal Government to Karuturi Global Ltd., the case of the Gambella Region appears as an emblematic example of a functional use of sovereign prerogatives: according to the Ethiopian national constitution, in fact, the federal state is provided with the power to expropriate and resettle people after having identified and declared the existence of a public purpose. In particular, Proclamation No. 455/2000 has codified in the federal legislation the constitutional provision that protects people from unjustified expropriation and guarantees the right to compensation. More precisely, Proclamation No. 455/200558 discloses the rationale lying behind expropriation, and provides us with a clear image of how the notion of development is currently filling the empty box of public interest and giving it a meaning.
From the point of view of smallholders, public purpose represents a double-edged sword that in the past was certainly utilized by some governments in favor of local farmers and non-owners and against the rights and interests of landlords, but that is now become a legitimate tool for forced eviction informed by what certainly is a constrained, market-led and economically driven ideological and political framework of the leading elite. The Ethiopian case, together with the endless series of cases of development projects which have been undertaken over inhabited land and forced resettlement, represents, in fact, a classical example of the monopolization of ‘public purpose’ by the idea of ‘development’, and of its use in order to pursue objectives which are clearly against development as intended by international law.
According to the 2004 ‘Review of progress and obstacles in the promotion, implementation, operationalization, and enjoyment of the right to development’ by the UN Economic and Social Council, and on the basis of article 1 and the preamble of the Declaration of the Right to Development, in fact, the right to development is defined as a right to a particular process of development in which ‘all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized’. Pursuing development, rather than being a mere economic process, has to enable people to realize the ‘rights and freedoms set forth in the International Bill of Human Rights, in their totality as an integrated whole’. Pursuing development, in other words, is not an end that legitimizes any violation and abuse, but a process that has to be treated as a right, a dialectic between state and people where all rights, i.e. economic, social and cultural, as well as civil and political, are realized together.
However, irrespective of the limits and boundaries determined by international law as a supranational obligation, States are continuously referring to ‘development’ as the key word to ideologically and legislatively legitimize the acceptance of large-scale investments in land that, as stated before, clearly violate the most fundamental rights of the involved population. On the other hand, international financial institutions, oblivious of the fact that, ‘if one excludes the performance of China from the estimates, from 1987 to 1999 there was a rise in the number of poor from 880 million to 945 million’, and deaf to the critics, continue pursuing an economic-development strategy, and to play a fundamental role in financing large-scale investment in Sub-Saharan Africa, manly by ‘helping attract investors and shaping policy and law that allows streamlined and lucrative contracts’.
Although some remedies are some time provided in order to minimize the negative impact of forced resettlement or to obtain the free, prior and informed consent, it is also true that it is possible to count infinite cases in which rules have been violated, therefore transforming the completed resettlement from legal to illegal, and that the idea underlying the possibility of compensation is that any plot of land is the same for farmers, disregarding the evidence that the fact that some land is commercially more attractive than other means that it is more productive, and completely ignoring all the anthropological and sociological studies that have demonstrated the unique relationship between land, culture and identity. The clearest evidence is provided by the Gambella case: although the Ethiopian authorities affirm that the entire ‘villagization’ procedure is voluntary, entire households are moving back to their original villages, unequivocally demonstrating the fact that land is not a commodity that can be exchanged with any other available good.
By defining as ‘national interest’ or ‘national good’ land-related development projects that do not respect the idea of the right to development, that generate migration, and produce unresolvable violations of the fundamental rights of people and local communities, states abuse the rights that are conferred on them both by the international and national community. If the distinction between internal and external sovereignty is artificial, and if internal sovereignty has to be exercised in respect of international law, in fact, the use of internal discretion in order to define as ‘of national interest’ projects which negatively impact local people and violate international obligations even when mitigation procedures are in place, is, therefore, an abuse of sovereignty that can be condemned in the appropriate fora.
In conclusion, as recently reminded by Liza Alden Wily, the current rush to land does not represent anything new for our planet, nor is the use of sovereignty and legality as an instrument to perpetuate injustices and favor private accumulation. The state as an instrument of capital interests is utilizing its prerogatives to provide the latter with cheap and disposable labor, land, and fiscal privileges. Extending what Erik Hobsbawn had already affirmed in the ’50s of the last century about public interest, we can thus conclude that in many circumstances sovereign prerogatives are ‘no more than the forces of profit-pursuing private enterprise’ which seek ‘to turn land into a commodity’, ‘to pass this land into the ownership of a class of men impelled by reason; i.e. enlightened self-interest and profit’, and ‘to transform the great mass of the rural population into freely mobile wage-workers’ (1962, 184).
In a system of international and national law based on fragmentation and the maximization of national prerogatives in favor of selfish interests, the legal response can hardly succeed if it remains individual: What is needed is a network of local seeds of global resistance.
(full text and References 1 to 11).
Cong leader in the dock for land grab, by S Shyam Prasad, June 22, 2012;
Land grab by any other name is just as counterproductive, by Karl Lyimo, June 21, 2012;
Land Grabs and Food Sovereignty, by Jamie S. Moloney, June 2012;
Online land grab: Groups taking new domain names, on Houston Chronicle, June 21, 2012: Religious groups have long vied for prime parcels of land, planting churches on town squares and monasteries amid isolated mountains. But now they’re targeting real estate in a less tangible sphere: cyberspace …
Joint action needed to address land grabbing, by Marina d’Engelbronner-Kolff, Dec, 1, 2011;
Moody’s stuft 15 Banken herab – Tiefere Ratings für CS und UBS, 22. Juni 2012: Die Ratingagentur Moody’s hat vor dem Hintergrund der europäischen Schuldenkrise zu einem Rundumschlag gegen die Grossbanken ausgeholt. Sie stufte am Donnerstag 15 Kreditinstitute herab, darunter die Schweizer Grossbanken UBS und Crédit Suisse (CS) …