Are we really that Civilised in the West

[PhilM]

Our media in the West portrays us as being the most Civilised people in the world, the most Environmentally aware, and living in Democracies. Our leaders refer to us as taking Civilisation, Environmental awareness and Democracy to the “Third World” as it is frequently referred to. Well here are just a few examples of the actions of the Civilised, Environmentally aware, and Democratic West’s current actions: -

Breaking down old oil tankers is dangerous due to the toxic substances left on board; it is thus expensive to do so in the West due to the legislation controlling this. Shipping companies therefore sell tankers to India and Bangladesh where they are broken down on the beach without a thought for the safety of the workers. These workers who get on average $2 per day die from inhaling toxic fumes, explosions caused through using acetylene torches or other injuries at work. Our Governments take no action to improve the workers lot, as that would increase costs to Western shipping companies.

Computers and their peripheral equipment are other items that are dangerous and costly to break down in the West. The solution - send them to China where people strip them down in the open air to recover wire and precious metals exposing themselves to lethal pcbs etc as they do so. Children as young as 5 fall terminally ill through helping their parents do this work

Labour laws and minimum wages make it costly to produce goods in the West unless it is in an illegal sweatshop. The solution more and more large companies have moved their production to countries where the workers work in terrible conditions for minimal wages. Often when making items such as sports equipment these workers are exposed to carcinogenic adhesives etc without any form of protection. If they die no problem there are many others looking for work.

The West condemns illegal logging in countries such as Indonesia, Burma, Laos, etc, yet at the same time we are the biggest customers for the wood products resulting from this illegal logging. Why? Because we denuded our own deciduous forests years ago.

Just four examples of what looks to me to be very Uncivilised, Ecologically ignorant, and Undemocratic behaviour by the West, I am sure you can give me many more. So I have a question for you: -

“Do you really think we in the West are as Civilised, Environmentally aware and Democratic as we frequently claim to be”?

[T2K]

Phil,

Your question is hard to answer in a straightforward manner because of the word "we".  You and I are both Westerners, yet we probably have differing opinions and thoughts on this matter.  And that difference is multiplied many times from person to person.

However, I would only say that I think there is definitely support to answer your final question in the affirmative.  Western countries generally have less governmental corruption and more legal protection for environmental issues than the rest of the world.  Naturally, there are exceptions both ways.

All the activies you cite don't actually happen in the West.  As you state, they would be illegal there.  Surely you recognize that this in itself is "civilised"?  That someone in a Western nation may somehow benefit from these activites cannot be equated to being responsible for them, can it?  Don't these countries bear any responsibility for themselves and what goes on within their borders?  

What is the solution?  Make our laws apply to other nations?

In most Western nations, forests/fisheries/environmental areas are well-protected and highly regulated.  This is an example that should be emulated.  That's how I see things.

[PhilM]

T2K A reasoned response; however I would question you on one issue. Stating because the issues I raised do not happen in our own country makes us civilised is a bit of a leap. This sounds a little like the NIMBY syndrome - I want cheap electricity but when you build the nuclear power station make sure it is Not In My Back Yard!

Surely if it is uncivilised to employ people in this way in our own countries, it is hypocritical to benefit from Western countries making use of uncivilised employment conditions in other countries?

I know I  stated my case in very black and white terms, I did so to give people more room to debate the issue if interested.

[Imagine]

PhilM,

On oil tankers:
The marine industry has set rules for a to-be-scrapped oil tanker.
These rules are upheld by various survey companies such as Lloyds, DNV & NK.
These companies are globally recognized, and without proper certification oil tankers are not allowed to be beached/dismantled.
These same survey companies are responsible for other safety measures on board of any ship, and they certify life-saving equipment, cranes, wires, ropes etc etc etc
Again, these rules are set by the marine industry themselves and the quantity of allowed toxic substances in a tank are exactly the same for a tanker to be dismantled in India, China, Bangladesh, Lisbon, Croatia etc etc

Yes, it is true that dismantling of tankers in India is less human-friendly but that is because labour laws are implied differently.
Finally, the value of a tanker to be scrapped is not set by the costs of workers, but by the current steel price.

Furthermore, you do not need to compare western regulations with eastern regulations. On safety issues you can easily compare western regulations against each other.
A single-hull tanker is not allowed to anchor or discharge in USA, whilst the same tanker is allowed to approach European waters and pass Suez Canal.
Moreover, super tankers are not allowed to come within a 100 mile radius of US shore, but are allowed to berth inside port Rotterdam.

On logging:
The biggest consumer of tropical hard woods are The Netherlands & Germany.
Both countries recently (5 years ago) have set rules for tropical forrestry.
This is controlled and certified by SGS Switzerland, and international certification company.
Timber without a proper certificate is not allowed to enter Europe anymore.
Timber with certificate is labelled "Green".
Alternatives for making European timber as dureable as tropical timber contains chemical treatment which is as environmental unfriendly as sustainable logging in Asia.
We can of course switch to plastic?

In most of the cases where illegal logging finds place, it is because of corrupt practices within the country of origin.
It is not because of unclear regulations set by the import-countries.
As an alternative to that we can of course completely ban all imports of Asian timber into European countries, but that will severely damage employment in the countries of origin.

Finally
Often it is not the case that countries offer their waste to Asian countries.
In many occasions it are the Asian countries applying for the jobs themselves. Not so long ago Singapore was a country with low wages and unprotected labour laws.
In fact labour laws in Singapore are still underdeveloped compared to many western countries. (look ate the quality of staging in construction area's).
We all know what happened to Singapore when they managed to get many foreign countries to start business there.
Now Phil, most probably you are in Singapore because your company did send you here. Most probably they did so because the market in Singapore allowed extra profit for your company.
You are most probably located in a building which is built by "underpaid" Bangladeshi's.
The oriental carpets in your house are most probably produced by children.
However, you are not sure as Singapore does not have import regulations that avoid child labour. In fact, none of the Asian countries have those regulations.
The import of oriental carpets into western countries however is subjected to strict rules and regulations, which try to avoid child labour.

And no... in many cases we are not 100% civilized, environmentally friendly and democratic. But at least we try to be.

[PhilM]

Imagine - Interesting post and some good insight; I will deal with just one issue in your post Oil Tankers.

You are correct about the various regulations issued by the different Bureaus; however only one majpr shipping line has so far signed up to these. India and Bangladesh completely ignore all legislation yet most ship owners still sell to them as they do not have to desludge and degas the tanks prior to delivery for scrapping. try the following websites for some factual information on conditions in India and Bangladesh.

http://www.unesco.org/csi/act/india/alang.htm
http://archive.greenpeace.org/toxics/html/content/bangladesh.html

[This message has been edited by PhilM (edited 17-11-2003).]

[Imagine]

PhilM,

Before a ship owner can beach a vessel it needs have the vessel certified "gas and oil free".

That means that a surveyor will come on board and he will check the cargo conditions.
This surveyor will then issue a cerificate.
Often it is the shipyard that sends the surveyor, or advises on which class they want this survey to be done.

After the cerficate is issued, there is nothing more a shipowner can do.

The vessel will then sail to the scrap yard.

There, the vessel will be handed over to the new owner (that is the shipyard).
The new owner will accept the vessel in present condition or reject same.
Payment is done.

Then the vessel will wait for spring-tide or sail into the drydock.

Remember... the vessel is already the responibility of the new owner who has had time enough to check the tanks.

As you can see, when the vessel is actually scrapped it is under responsibility of the scrapyard.
It makes no sense to blame shipowners, as they are offering the vessels according to the countire/scrapyards regulations.

[Dr Opinion]

Phil, you're clearly a member of Her Majesty's Commonwealth: no-one else in the world imagines they are bringing "civilization" when they invade places.  

When the Americans invade places, for example, it is always to "defend liberty" rather than "bring civilization".

The distinction is important: "bringing civlization" necessitates (by definition) the construction of cities and the education of an urban class. This involves the development of public safety, educational, logistic, power, and legal infrastructures, and all in all it's *very* expensive.

"Defending liberty" is much cheaper. You just blow stuff up and kill "bad guys". Then as soon as the oil wells are secure and fully operational you force some two-bit "provincial authority" to sign all the oil fields over to you in exchange for a tiny cut of their own resources (its called "privatization"), then you hastily exit all urban centers. Of course, you leave heavy armor contingents and Marines to defend the "strategic oil assets".

This, of course, leaves a massive security crisis and humanitarian disaster for the Europeans to become embroiled in for decades.... At least, they'd better get *damn* embroiled if they want any of your newly "privatized" Iraqi oil!  

[Imagine]

PhilM,

On your various regulations and only one shipping line singning up.

This is pertinent not correct.
Class certification is a requirement from A) Cargo owners and B) Shipping Organisation

As ocean vessels are not subjected to any other laws then the laws of the flag they are under, basically every ship owner can do what he wants.
It are the ship owners themselves that regulate do and don'ts for the shipping industry.
The fact that there are sufficient life-rafts on board or the fact that vessels need to have EPIRBS, 2 sets of radars, EEBD'S etc etc on board are examples of safety regulations set by all shipowners.
A ship that does not comply to these regulations is not allowed to sail.

The implimentation of those regulations are checked by Port Authorities and Cargo Owners.

A oil tanker for example is only allowed to carry oil if the oil company approves the vessel to do so.
This is partly out of self-protection.
If an oil company charters an oil tanker they are responsible if something happens to the cargo.

All shipping lines have to obey the rules and certification set by the shipping organisation.

Also, the regulations are not issued by the various Bureaus.
They are only appointed to check if the regulations are obeyed.

It's a good system and avoids the shipping industry to issue it's own certification. DNV, Lloyds & NK are independent organisations.
Port Authorities (such as PSA) are allowed to chain up a vessel whenever they feel that safety measures are not according to standards.

As you can see all ships are under the same regulations and all shipowners have signed to obey these regulations.

[Publius]

This is a dubious thread for a few reasons.

First, the fact that "India and Bangladesh ignore all legislation" is a criticism of the East not the West.

Second, big business has never been considered the standard-bearers for civilization in the West or anywhere else. And the international body that sets the standards by which big business acts is the WTO, a collective of many countries including China.

The West is considered civilized because it gave rise to democracy, liberalism, constitutionalism, human rights, modern economics and many of the greatest discoveries, inventions, and works of art that today benefit the world as a whole.

The East is civilized for different reasons. The first rocket science came from China. The West still has a lot to learn from Mahatma Gandhi.  

[Bruno]

Let's go to the dictionary:

``n. An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in
human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of
record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and
social institutions.''

``Advanced state'' is a relative term, so one could argue that the West isn't civilized compared with a civilization somewhere in the universe. But here on Earth there really is no question.

[PhilM]

Interesting responses to date, it seems the general feeling is “Yes we are civilised within our own country boundaries, please do not judge us for what we do in other countries”

Simplistic response from me to the posts following my original one – yes – but read the replies thoroughly and you can see that feeling being expressed.

Why did I initiate this post? A large past of the division between the fully developed and less developed countries in the world is perceptions of exploitation by the rich of the poor. Historically this exploitation was done by military colonisation, you sailed a gun boat into harbour offloaded the troops and ruled by suppression as long as there were natural resources of value to your country. Some of course would argue the USA is still practicing this today in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Modern day exploitation of less developed countries is carried out by Multi National companies with the support of their political leaders and for countries such as the UK their Royalty. Labour and Health & Safety laws make it too expensive to operate at home, fine look for a less developed country, which is desperate for business, and get the job done there. Want to increase profits on your manufactured goods, fine get them manufactured in a less developed country where the workforce has to work for at least twelve hours a day in bad conditions and for very little pay.

The one benefit of this exploitation to the less developed country is an influx of foreign capital; however this becomes self-defeating. As the country uses the foreign capital to develop the peoples expectations rise and labour costs and employment legislation rise along with them; however this is no problem to the MNC they simply move on to a poorer country where the labour costs and labour laws are lower. As an example look at just how many Multi National Companies moved to Singapore when she was undeveloped but have already moved on to less developed countries – has this resulted in problems for Singapore?

We in the “Civilised” West benefit from this exploitation with cheaper goods in the shops and by having “dirty” work done abroad (Not In My Back Yard). This is a two edged sword though for as manufacturers move their production abroad jobs are lost in our own countries. Levi jeans is the latest company to state it will no longer produce in the USA for “cost” reasons. Western economies particularly that of the USA are now running in serious deficit as so much of what was produced in country is now sourced from abroad.

Sad but true, old style military colonisation brought wealth into the coloniser’s country as the natural resources of the colonised country were exploited. Modern day exploitation of poorer countries low wages and weak employment, health & safety legislation whilst enriching the Multi National Company costs jobs in the West and has seriously affected the economy of Western countries.

So whilst I would agree we are largely Civilised, Environmentally aware, and living in Democratic societies within our own countries I also feel our ongoing uncivilised exploitation of countries we naively consider less Civilised, Environmentally aware or Democratic is starting to boomerang on us. As more and more of these poor countries develop their own economic muscle many of us will see our own Western countries slip away from the current economic dominance we enjoy, and it will all be because our Multi national Companies so ably supported by our politicians continue to exploit others.

[the senator]

MK Gandhi was asked "What do you think of Western Civilization?"

He replied, "I think it would be a wonderful idea."

[confusedcious]

PhilM - is the word "really" really necessary in your topic heading?

[cactus]

The Question IS "Are we that civilized in the west?"

After living and working in Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, I'd say, yes, THE WEST REALLY IS THAT CIVILIZED.

...AND A BIG SHAME ON THE REST OF THE WORLD.

[Pomp]

Mighty civilized of you to say so about your host countries.