Connecting the Global and the Local: Women’s Human Rights Movements and the Critique of Globalization

In this interview, Josefa Francisco talks about WAGI's work, the importance of international women's human rights advocacy in national/local struggles, and the need for strong linkages between global and national/local struggles. She explains why feminists in the South should counter neo-liberalist globalization, discusses some problems with the women's movement at global and national/local levels, gives a critique of the Northern rights language discourse, and offers advice to younger feminists.

WHRnet: Tell us about the Women and Gender Institute, or WAGI, and its work.

Francisco: WAGI is an academic-based resource center for women. One of the programs WAGI offers is a course on international women's human rights. We provide a ten-day, non-degree certificate course every summer. We are now on our fourth year of offering this course.
Why are we offering the course? We believe that there have been major advances in formalizing certain legal rights for women. These rights were won by the women's movement in the context of UN conferences in the 1990s. This does not mean that the rights language or women's rights address all the issues of women's empowerment. International "women's human rights" standards are an insufficient paradigm to ensure women's empowerment. Nonetheless, we believe that it is a key victory for women that certain formal rights, which had been denied to women by states, are now being recognized.
So what is the value of internationally won or negotiated formal and legal rights for women? The value lies in women's human rights standards providing reference points for the improvement of women's legal status at the national level.

WHRnet: There are those who say that achievements at the international level are useless or insufficient because they do not trickle down to the national/local levels.

Francisco: The trickling down of international statutes or international agreements at the national level is not automatic. For implementation or compliance to be realized at the national and local levels, we need the involvement of an active and vibrant women's movement. We need the involvement of women's human rights advocates at the local and national levels. Without women's advocates operating actively at local and national levels, it is easy for governments to escape compliance because the international agreements do not have built-in sanctions. There are no built-in sanctions in any human rights agreements.
In the World Trade Organization (WTO), when countries sign agreements, they know that if they do not comply, they will be given some sort of punishment. For example, countries might not trade with them. The threat of sanctions forces compliance on the part of states. If people steal millions and are given only two days imprisonment, people will not be deterred from committing such a crime.
On the other hand, international human rights agreements, including the conference declarations emanating from the United Nations General Assembly, do not have sanctions, even if they are legally binding.

WHRnet:Why don't UN agreements have sanctions?

Francisco: Because the General Assembly operates on the nation-state system where ultimate sovereignty or political power rests with the state. In the case of the WTO, which is a product of globalization, there is greater recognition that states can be managed by a global governance institution. The WTO is an example of a new global institution, whereas the UN General Assembly continues to function in the traditional pre-globalization nation-state system.
However, international human rights agreements do entail moral sanctions. For example, if a country is due to report on CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) and it is found that the particular country does not respect women's human rights, it will be criticized.

WHRnet:What is WAGI's take on globalization?

Francisco: WAGI is critical of globalization. It is clear that globalization is a process of rapid expansion of capital at the global level that is made possible by advances in technology, particularly information and communication technology and biotechnology.

WHRnet:How would you imagine the situation of people in developing countries if the current process of globalization continues and we do not do anything about it? What will our world be like?

Francisco: Definitely there will be a lot of exclusion and fragmentation. The majority of the South will become fragmented and, at the same time, excluded from the advantages and benefits of globalization. These benefits are really circulating only among the elite.
In the context of fragmentation and marginalization, our prediction is that a lot of people will find themselves in the informal sector because structures and systems that have supported formal production of a different kind will be broken up by the speeded-up process of global capital. At the same time that work becomes more informal, traditional and modern (globalization is post-modern) life support systems will weaken. If life support systems fade away, there will be widespread impoverishment, particularly for the poor who rely so much on these. Even the middle class will be affected by an increase in contract and more flexible work, as the economic system and industries restructure at the national level because they cannot compete with some of the big corporations.
Furthermore, big corporations dominate the choice industries. The choice industries are linked to a series of informal industries -- for example, information technology services, financial services, insurance, currency services, biotechnology. The Philippines does not really have a hugely competitive home industry. We only sell products and send our skilled workers to multinational companies to staff financial, information, and management support services needed to support the life of corporations back in the North.

WHRnet: You mentioned in the past that there is a crisis within the women's movement -- for example, divides among women's groups even at the national level. Given a women's movement in crisis, how do you think we should respond to the threats of this kind of globalization?

Francisco: I would first like to clarify what this crisis is. Part of the crisis concerns old issues, such as personality conflicts, the transition of power between young and old feminists, political orientations or divisions, and competition for funding. So part of the conflict comes from the continuing dynamism of old issues, but there are certainly new issues that contribute to the crisis of the women's movement in this period of globalization. One is the issue of the lack of analysis -- an adequate theoretical and political analysis that takes into account the processes and dynamism of globalization. The call for sovereignty will now have to be situated in the context of globalization.
We still have to assert sovereignty, but the campaign for sovereignty will have to be sensitive to the nuances of new issues and new dynamism in the context of shifts and tensions around globalization. We struggle against elite-led capitalism in our country, but some do not see that there is also global capitalism, which is a legitimate area of struggle. We have to connect this global struggle with the local struggle. I do not believe those who say that there is no global struggle and that the only true struggle is at the local level. The local struggle is important, but I do not believe those who say that there is no such thing as a global struggle.

WHRnet: Why do you think some in the women's movement do not consider the global struggle as so important?

Francisco: This is because of the lack of engagement theoretically and critically. Some do not see the new realm of critical engagement and global struggle. For example, WAGI has positioned itself with the World Social Forum; It also supports the campaigns of "Our World is Not for Sale." Strategies at this level are strategies to bring down and derail the WTO, and stop the expansion of global capitalism.
Why is there no critical engagement in the Philippines and the South? Is there a failure to see the linkage between the local and global? A lot of it has something to do with the state of the worldwide women's movement. Part of the problem lies in the fact that the leaders and the theoreticians of the feminist North, of the so-called global women's movement that came out of the UN conferences, were all sold on globalization. Today, they are not as critical of globalization as we are. It is not just a matter of race arrogance; it is a matter of race politics because they benefit from globalization. So the Southern perspective is different from their perspective. But we in the South are closely linked with feminists in the North-this is a reason that we have a crisis in the South.
Northern feminists seem to be convinced that the political project of the women's movement is to humanize globalization. Southern feminists think that they (Northern feminists) miss the point. The point is not about whether one is for or against globalization. I think that kind of a simplistic dichotomy is not constructive and is devoid of theorizing. It is also propagandistic. The real battle is not between those who are for or against globalization; the real battle is between those who are for a neo-liberalist type of globalization and those who want to see a different kind of globalization. We say no to the neo-liberalist type of globalization, but we can envision an alternative future where there is more interdependence of countries -- one that is not based on the dynamism of global capital or based on the leadership of transnational corporations.
The rights language is partly reflective of neo-liberalism, but it also contains the seeds of a certain transformation. The rights language can only become transformative if it is couched within a critical interrogation of democracy. You can only have rights within the context of genuine democracy. If the WTO is not democratic, you cannot insist on putting human rights in the WTO rules.

WHRnet:You mentioned earlier the old problem of the transition of power between older and younger feminists. What advice would you give to younger feminists?

Francisco: Be autonomous. Create the conditions for your self to be able to decide and move forward. I am a bit critical of the sisterhood and solidarity of the past that held the young women very much under the patronage of the older women.
Be self critical in a way that your own search for your skills and analysis and experience will not move you away from social transformation or social justice.

Related links:

Women and Gender Institute
http://www.comlogik.com/miriamcollege/wagi_main.htm

Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era
http://www.dawn.org.fj

World Social Forum
http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/home.asp

Our World is Not for Sale
http://www.ourworldisnotforsale.org/