The shredding of our fundamental rights and the common good
As we approach the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta and the Charter of the Forest of 1215, it is becoming increasingly clear that these human rights documents are assuming a greater significance for the Third World than ever before. Though English in their origin, the jettisoning of the rights enshrined in them should be a matter of concern for all.
RECENT events trace a threatening trajectory, sufficiently so that it may be worthwhile to look ahead a few generations to the millennium anniversary of one of the great events in the establishment of civil and human rights: the issuance of the Magna Carta, the charter of English liberties imposed on King John in 1215.
What we do right now, or fail to do, will determine what kind of world will greet that anniversary. It is not an attractive prospect - not least because the Great Charter is being shredded before our eyes.
The first scholarly edition of the Magna Carta was published in 1759 by the English jurist William Blackstone, whose work was a source for US constitutional law. It was entitled 'The Great Charter and the Charter of the Forest', following earlier practice. Both charters are highly significant today.
The first, the Charter of Liberties, is widely recognised to be the cornerstone of the fundamental rights of the English-speaking peoples - or as Winston Churchill put it more expansively, 'the charter of every self-respecting man at any time in any land'.
In 1679 the Charter was enriched by the Habeas Corpus Act, formally titled 'an Act for the better securing the liberty of the subject, and for prevention of imprisonment beyond the seas'. The modern harsher version is called 'rendition' - imprisonment for the purpose of torture.
Along with much of English law, the Act was incorporated into the US Constitution, which affirms that 'the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended' except in case of rebellion or invasion. In 1961, the US Supreme Court held that the rights guaranteed by this Act were '[c]onsidered by the Founders as the highest safeguard of liberty'.
More specifically, the Constitution provides that no 'person [shall] be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law [and] a speedy and public trial' by peers.
The Department of Justice has recently explained that these guarantees are satisfied by internal deliberations in the executive branch, as Jo Becker and Scott Shane reported in the New York Times on 29 May. Barack Obama, the constitutional lawyer in the White House, agreed. King John would have nodded with satisfaction.
The underlying principle of 'presumption of innocence' has also been given an original interpretation. In the calculus of the president's 'kill list' of terrorists, 'all military-age males in a strike zone' are in effect counted as combatants 'unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent', Becker and Shane summarised. Thus post-assassination determination of innocence now suffices to maintain the sacred principle.
This is the merest sample of the dismantling of 'the charter of every self-respecting man'.
The companion Charter of the Forest is perhaps even more pertinent today. It demanded protection of the commons from external power. The commons were the source of sustenance for the general population - their fuel, their food, their construction materials. The Forest was no wilderness. It was carefully nurtured, maintained in common, its riches available to all, and preserved for future generations.
By the 17th century, the Charter of the Forest had fallen victim to the commodity economy and capitalist practice and morality. No longer protected for cooperative care and use, the commons were restricted to what could not be privatised - a category that continues to shrink before our eyes.
Recently the World Bank ruled that the mining multinational Pacific Rim can proceed with its case against El Salvador for trying to preserve lands and communities from highly destructive gold mining. Environmental protection would deprive the company of future profits, a crime under the rules of the investor rights regime mislabelled as 'free trade'.
This is only one example of struggles under way over much of the world, some with extreme violence, as in resource-rich eastern Congo, where millions have been killed in recent years to ensure an ample supply of minerals for cellphones and other uses, and of course ample profits.
The dismantling of the Charter of the Forest brought with it a radical revision of how the commons are conceived, captured by Garrett Hardin's influential thesis in 1968 that 'Freedom in a commons brings ruin to us all', the famous 'tragedy of the commons': What is not privately owned will be destroyed by individual avarice.
The doctrine is not without challenge. Elinor Olstrom won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 2009 for her work showing the superiority of user-managed commons.
But the doctrine has force if we accept its unstated premise: that humans are blindly driven by what American workers, at the dawn of the industrial revolution, called 'the New Spirit of the Age, Gain Wealth forgetting all but Self' - a doctrine they bitterly condemned as demeaning and destructive, an assault on the very nature of free people.
Huge efforts have been devoted since to inculcating the New Spirit of the Age. Major industries are dedicated to what political economist Thorstein Veblen called 'fabricating wants' - directing people to 'the superficial things' of life, like 'fashionable consumption', in the words of Columbia University marketing professor Paul Nystrom.
That way people can be atomised, seeking personal gain alone and diverted from dangerous efforts to think for themselves, act in concert and challenge authority.
It's unnecessary to dwell on the extreme dangers posed by one central element of the destruction of the commons: the reliance on fossil fuels, which courts global disaster. Details may be debated, but there is little serious doubt that the problems are all too real and that the longer we delay in addressing them, the more awful will be the legacy left to generations to come. The recent Rio+20 conference is the latest effort. Its aspirations were meagre, its outcome derisory.
In the lead in confronting the crisis, throughout the world, are indigenous communities. The strongest stand has been taken by the one country they govern, Bolivia, the poorest country in South America and for centuries a victim of Western destruction of its rich resources.
After the ignominious collapse of the Copenhagen global climate change summit in 2009, Bolivia organised a People's Summit with 35,000 participants from 140 countries. The summit called for very sharp reduction in emissions, and a Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth. That is a key demand of indigenous communities all over the world.
The demand is ridiculed by sophisticated Westerners, but unless we can acquire some of the sensibility of the indigenous communities, they are likely to have the last laugh - a laugh of grim despair.
Noam Chomsky's most recent book is Occupy. Chomsky is emeritus professor of linguistics and philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass. The above, which is reproduced from the AlterNet website (alternet.org), is adapted from an address given on 19 June at the University of St. Andrews in Fife, Scotland, as part of its 600th anniversary celebration. The full text of the address is available on TomDispatch.com.
*Third World Resurgence No. 262, June 2012, pp 49-50