Andrew Douglas Graham
M3742637
Submitted for The Open University
Master of Arts in Philosophy Degree
September 2021
Work is entirely my own.
10282 words
Abstract
Millions of children across the globe die of easily
preventable disease every year, the majority of the world’s population live in
poverty struggling every day to find food, water and shelter. A very small
percentage of the world’s population have plenty; food in abundance, lavish
houses, travel and live a life never wanting for anything. Guarding what they
have against any incomers or others who do not meet their peer group
definitions. Developed countries have vast people living in poverty,
accommodation and food are problems for many people. This makes one wonder why
the current system for providing help is flawed. Capitalism, Socialism and
Nationalism are failing to provide global justice, an alternative is needed. Richer
countries donate millions in aid to both their own populations and for foreign
aid, is this enough, is it managed well, does it reach the people who need it;
or can the poverty and suffering be ignored because it is far away, out of
sight out of mind? Countries signed up to make 0.7% of GDP available for
foreign aid but few got to this level and countries are now reducing how much
they pay for aid; the targets are ignored. Corruption, war, cheque-book diplomacy
and nationalism are all spreading throughout the globe. Nationalism and
Patriotism are two words that many people think have the same meaning. There
are many important differences, and these differences are explored in relation
to how they pertain to foreign aid. If we could persuade our governments to
think just a little differently, even a small change would make huge advances
towards eliminating world hunger and disease, and provide suitable
accommodation and access to opportunity, wherever in the world we are born. Not
a regime or change to political systems, but just an ideology that we can all
live by, instead of being suspicious of others, embrace and learn. This paper
will argue that cosmopolitanism is the best ideology for providing foreign aid.
Contents
Introduction Page 4
Chapter 1 Cosmopolitanism and Political views. Page 4
Chapter 2 Should we give foreign aid? Page 10
Chapter 3 Cosmopolitanism. Page 15
Chapter 4 Political view; Nationalism
and Patriotism. Page 20
Conclusion Page 26
Bibliography Page 27
Introduction
This thesis will
examine two different views and relate them to provision of global justice and
foreign aid. The Cosmopolitan view and the Political view. The political view
will be shown to have two parts, nationalism and patriotism. I will show that
cosmopolitan ideas are by far the best for providing foreign aid, and although
patriotism is more desirable than nationalism it still does not come close to
cosmopolitism ideas for providing aid.
Cosmopolitans
ignore nationalism, focusing on international organizations and regimes that
may erode the sovereignty of nation-states and reorient their identities and
interests away from the nation and focus to other cultures in order to learn
and help. This makes cosmopolitanism more able to provide aid than the
Political views of Nationalism and Patriotism. Four chapters will explore
global justice and foreign aid. Chapter 1 starts with an explanation of the
cosmopolitan and political views. Chapter 2 asks if we should give foreign aid
at all and how each ideology’s flaws hinder the movement of aid. The chapter
gives a brief history of foreign aid and introduces humanitarian and
development aid. Then explains why and how we provide aid. Chapter 3 explains
Cosmopolitanism in detail and how as an ideology it makes the giving and
distributing of aid to anyone who needs it, wherever they, understandable and
explainable. Chapter 4 explains how the political view is split between
nationalism and patriotism and the important differences. How patriotism is
being proud of what a country does, and Nationalism being proud of whatever the
country does. I conclude with stating that although patriotism is preferred to
nationalism neither can come close to cosmopolitan ideology for providing
foreign aid.
1 Cosmopolitanism and Political views.
In this opening chapter I will introduce and explain
Cosmopolitan and Political views and why they are important to global justice
and providing foreign aid.
Global justice is an issue about fairness. Richer
nations have an obligation to help poorer nations, so that everyone in the
world can improve their standards of living to an acceptable level. Human
nature and instinct are to help those in need and suffering.
In order to discuss aid and how it is distributed
there are two views which are important and how we think about global justice.
Both have their pros and cons, and the differences are important in how we try to
achieve global justice.
The political view sees nation-states working independently
or with others through agreements to provide aid to the needy on behalf of their
populace. This view has two sub-categories, Nationalist and Patriotic.
Cosmopolitanism is a view that nation-states are less important than the needs
of the individuals themselves who may need help to reach a reasonable standard
of living.
The Political view is closely related to groups, and
this leads to seeing global justice as not important as the local smaller group
takes priority. When small groups expand and make ties with other small groups they
form into a nation-state with a government. Nation-states mostly work
independently to provide aid to the needy. Cosmopolitanism is the view that all
the people of the world deserve to be treated with equal rights especially with
regards to basic human rights, food, water, sanitation, shelter, health and
education. The cosmopolitan view has global justice as most important. We have
a combination of both views in relation to aid at present in that governments
provide aid to poorer nations and people also donate voluntarily their time
and/or money additionally if they are so inclined.
The responsibility for the hungry around the world can
be down to either states or individuals. A government helping the world's impoverished
and paid by taxation, or individuals helping by donating to charity or
volunteer work. Only trusted governments can put in measures to ensure aid gets
where it is intended to go because a charity working alone can do little if the
aid is diverted in a receiving country. A worldwide organization would be needed
to control, and this is an argument against letting nation-states be
responsible for aid as a state’s government will look after its own people
first and will dictate where any aid goes putting its own interests first
rather than the needy of other states.
John Rawls (1921–2002) was an American philosopher who
in 1993 published The Law of Peoples thought to be one of the most
important political philosophical writings of modern times. He added to it
later in 1993 and revised it in 1999. Rawls gives reasons for individual states
being independent and is against a world government or global state preferring
independent states working together through pacts and agreements. He says that
local regions would fight for their autonomy and nation-states are necessary
for political reasons; people care about and will work to advance their own
local political needs to a common good. Rawls says ‘…fault in those societies
lay in their political traditions and the background institutions of law,
property, and class structure, with their sustaining beliefs and culture.’ (Rawls,
1993). Rawls is saying here that the problems a country has with poverty is
more to do with the political culture than natural disasters, even if the
political decisions were taken many years in the past. Rawls set out eight
principles for a conception of justice that all states, could follow to allow
for peaceful co-existence. The eight principles are;
1 Peoples (as organized by their government) are free
and independent, and their freedom and independence are to be respected by
other peoples.
2 Peoples are equal and parties to their own
agreements.
3 Peoples have the right of self-defence but no right
to war.
4 Peoples are to observe a duty of non-intervention.
5 Peoples are to observe treaties and undertakings.
6 Peoples are to observe certain specified
restrictions on the conduct of war (assumed to be in self-defence).
7 Peoples are to honour human rights.
8 Peoples have a duty to assist other peoples living
under unfavourable conditions that prevent their having a just or decent
political and social regime. (Rawls, 1999).
Rawls says that the word 'peoples' means ‘the actors
in the Society of Peoples’ (Rawls, 1993). They share features such as a common
system of government and moral nature. Although the Law of Peoples is meant
for liberal systems, the peoples Rawls talks about are not necessarily liberal
states. 'Decent hierarchical peoples' such as authoritarian or religious
countries also can follow the principles, though 'burdened societies', 'outlaw
states' and 'benevolent absolutisms' do not.
'Decent hierarchical peoples' can be non-liberal, but well-ordered
states, those that have tolerance which Rawls sees as important for any nation.
The Law of Peoples can be seen as an attempt to show how far
international cooperation and toleration can go and these principles can be
used to help in times of disasters when people need help. All peoples have a
duty to assist other peoples.
Philosopher Thomas Nagel calls Liberal Nationalism the
political view. Nagel studied under John Rawls in Harvard in the early 1960s.
Nagel discusses Thomas Hobbes’ book Leviathan in which Hobbes argues
that a ruling body for enforcing laws is needed for justice to exist. Without a
ruling body then justice will not exist in practise leading to no rules or any systematic
working. Nagel says that ‘some form of humane assistance from the well off to
those in extremis is clearly called for quite apart from the demand for
justice’. He says we should look at richer nations helping the needier nations
in a humanitarian sense as justice, rather than aid. He makes a point of
distinguishing between political and cosmopolitan in that political is more
institutionalised or dependent on groups and cosmopolitan is more individual.
(Nagel, 2005).
Nagel defines cosmopolitanism as ‘an equal concern or
a duty of fairness that we owe in principle to all our fellow human beings’.
(Nagel, 2005). Random factors should not guide the way we treat people from
other places in the world, and a nation-state can be seen as an obstacle to
global justice because each nation will look after its own people first and
they might have reservations against others for several reasons; historic,
political, culture, religion or race.
Nagel says
We do not deserve to have been born into a particular
society any more than we deserve to have been born into a particular family.
Those who are not immigrants have done nothing to become members of their
society. (Nagel, 2005).
This is a powerful statement for integration and
migration. We should not deny or put-up obstacles to people who try to enter a
country to be given help, they should be allowed to enter and be welcomed.
Those who are born into a specific society have no advantage over those who are
not. We want to contribute to the society we choose to live in and to expand
its prosperity, looking to the future rather than the past.
Family groups and small local groups become attached and
have special obligations from the members. We provide
many services for the people of our own country and these obligations come
before any obligation to others outside the group, or country. An example of this
is that we give social security benefits to our fellow citizens but not to those
in other countries, wherever they may be in the world. The groups increase in
size and become a country and then grew to a group of countries as deals and
agreements where made. Groups of states could be governed by a world government
or an organisation of such size to overrule individual countries to enable work
towards a common good, otherwise local priorities and obligations prevail.
Special obligations are seen to exist over and above our obligation to help
those outside our group and these obligations can hinder any collective attempt
to provide aid to other states. Cosmopolitanism accepts that individuals can
work together no matter where they are from or what groups they are members of,
and this could be promoted from within each state.
Samuel Scheffler wrote of problems with the political
view in that the special responsibilities to the groups can give advantages and
obligations that are often unjustified. People concentrate on their own groups
rather than think about people who are not part of that group. People who are
members of these groups and have a special responsibility to those groups to
the detriment of needier groups of people. He gives what he calls ‘the
distributive objection’;
…such
responsibilities confer additional advantages on people who have already
benefited from participating in rewarding groups and relationships and that
this is unjustifiable whenever the provision of these additional advantages
works to the detriment of those who are needier… (Scheffler, 2002).
This is the distributive objection and is how
Scheffler argues that a political system is not beneficial to the cosmopolitan view
due to the groups within the system having loyalties to their groups as opposed
to those people who have greater need but are not members of their groups.
Global justice and foreign aid are not absent from a
political view. Global justice can be low down in priority because decisions on
global justice are left to the leaders in government who will prioritize local
issues. Problems such as receiving countries having aid diverted away from those
who need it can be eradicated by having a strong system in place to make sure
the aid gets to where it is meant to be. People will gather and support their
small groups. Where they are born, or where they migrate to becomes a matter of
pride and they will attempt to advance their groups over others. Rivalries will
be prevalent, and it is difficult to get these groups to work together. The United
Nations and World Health Organisation are examples of global attempts to unite
countries under one umbrella.
If a famine is considered a failure of the political
set up in a state rather than a natural disaster, then a state needs to
politically fix things rather than rely on rich countries providing aid. If the
whole world tried to stop famine instead of individual countries, then we would
need worldwide organisations that could override the individual states
decisions. There are many different cultural and political states, religious,
hierarchal, liberal, and it is difficult to get them all to agree to an
organisation that would override their decisions to relieve famine or other
disasters. The United Nations and World Health Organisation are such organisations.
David Miller says we have obligations to fellow
countrymen in his 1995 book On Nationality. He says that countries are
‘ethical communities’ and that
In acknowledging a national identity, I am also
acknowledging that I owe special obligations to fellow members of my nation
which I do not owe to other human beings.’ (Miller, 1995).
This leads on from the special obligations we have to
our family members and hints that a group acting is better than individuals
acting alone. We all have special obligations to our small groups that take
priority over any obligation we have to others. Moral issues,
families and obligations to local groups create special obligations and people
will concentrate on these rather than global considerations this leads to
people justifying the gap between domestic and global justice.
Thomas Pogge relates an issue of local to global
justice in commenting about negative duties (to help) and positive duties (not
to harm). Residents of your own town living with basic human rights while the
rest of the country lived in luxury and how this would be an obvious injustice,
the town would see the local people having a need and the rest of the country
would come together to help as one. But this becomes less likely as distance
increases.
Suppose we
discovered people on Venus who are very badly off and suppose we could help
them at little cost to ourselves. If we did nothing, we should surely violate a
positive duty of beneficence. But we should not be violating a negative duty of
justice, because we would not be contributing to the perpetuation of their
misery. (Pogge, 2008)
The political view sees it as in some way different
and not an injustice when the needy are far away. Domestic and global justice
are seen as two separate issues and the domestic issues take precedence. With cosmopolitanism
all should be treated the same whether local or many miles away in another
country.
Charles Beitz criticises Rawls and Nagel in a response
to Rawls’ Law of Peoples. He looks at who should work out a system for
global justice, individuals or states, and the duties we might have to assist
peoples in states other than our own. Beitz thinks we should be looking at what
should be done rather than what can be done, an ideal rather than a pragmatic
approach. Formal governments are needed to maintain institutions to manage
resources. People together rather than individuals should bear responsibility
for global justice. Rawls thinks that what underpins our duty to the people of
other states is to assist them so that they can sort themselves into a
well-ordered state. Beitz, by contrast, thinks that our duties go deeper. He
thinks international actions should be to help states become better-ordered
societies rather than help individuals.
Beitz challenges two of Rawls’ claims. 1 Giving
priority to local needs leads to global inequality, which brings problems about
how to make any changes required to carry out any principles of international
justice. We are more interested in what those principles should be and there is
difficulty in knowing what is happening in other states. 2 That the
cosmopolitan distribution principle where everyone throughout the world
receives the same benefit from growth and equal distribution of material goods;
is unfair to those peoples that have managed their affairs responsibly and
benefit those who waste their resources and do not plan. Beitz argues that is
unfair to blame the current generation for the mistakes made by past
generations. Peoples shouldn't be held responsible for the past errors of their
state but are ‘the innocent victims of the past choices of others rather
than…the authors of those choices’ themselves’. (Beitz, 2000). Inequalities can
be stopped from being carried from domestic to international spheres,
individual responses to internal politics would not be to the detriment of the
poorer members of states.
To conclude this chapter, I have said that all people
should have proper life chances and basic human rights wherever they are born
or whatever culture they are born into. These are pre-political rights;
everyone should have these before a state can be made to govern and
cosmopolitans encourage this. I have introduced and explained the cosmopolitan
and political views and how they are important to providing aid.
The political view is where small groups of people
form into groups and elect leaders. And the cosmopolitan view is that the
people of the whole world should be treated the same and place of birth should
not matter. The richer peoples should aid the poorer peoples to increase their
quality of life to try and give us all the same standards of living.
Cosmopolitan view is the best view for foreign aid,
political views are too local, inward looking, complicated and uncooperative;
foreign aid comes low down on the list of priorities.
This chapter
will introduce historical context, Humanitarian and Development aid then discuss
why aid is given and how it is used.
Aid is resources given from one country to another and
could include food, military equipment, training or medical supplies. Aid is
often given in the form of a cash loan or grant by governments. Aid is also provided
by non-government-organizations. Organizations and individuals in richer
countries help people in less well-off countries. Individual charities from
wealthier countries can provide aid targeted to a particular need. These
charities often have funding from government.
Historic colonial past and political alliances are
major influences of where foreign aid goes to. We can call foreign aid
compensatory justice or repatriations which alludes to the history of European
powers and the exploitation and colonization of most of the world. These
powers, took natural resources, exploited foreign people, propped up corrupt
regimes, and funded dictators and warlords around the globe, for their own
gain. Even today the damage caused by pollution leading to desertification and
health problems in poorer countries is caused by the wealthier developed
countries.
Foreign aid started with colonialism and imperialism. The
ruling country would put money and resources into their colonized country in order
to benefit themselves, they treated the conquered country as their own. When
independence came, the newly independent country would see aid as a right, as
payment for exploitation.
Colonialism and imperialism are not the only reasons
for aid to flow. Reacting to natural disasters or military conflict will mean
humanitarian aid is given. If a natural disaster such as an earthquake strikes
a country, short-term humanitarian aid is needed immediately. This includes the
delivery of food and water, the provision of temporary shelter, as well as
health services.
The historical context is one way of accepting that
aid should flow from the wealthier to the poorer parts of the world. It would
be almost impossible to use the gains of a country due to one sided historical
and present-day issues to make payments or provide aid. A fairer way is to use a percentage of Gross
Domestic Product, GDP, as a measure of how much money is provided for aid to
poorer countries. A country is determined to be rich or poor by referencing its
GDP. Using a percentage of GDP removes the feelings of guilt or punishment that
trying to measure the results of historic exploitation creates.
Aid must go to countries who are not only in a poor
position due to developed powers’ actions but also due to its own mistakes or
mismanagement that can cause natural disasters and conflict. Humanitarian
principles dictate that those who need help should get it from those who can
afford to help. Humanitarian principles are stated by the UN as Humanity, Neutrality,
Impartiality and Independence (unocha, 2012). The principles are concerned with
saving lives and alleviating suffering while maintaining dignity and
independence. Cosmopolitanism applies this to all and ignore borders; everyone
has a right to basic human needs such as shelter, food, health, jobs, education
and opportunities no matter where they are born. If we do not lift people out
of poverty it could easily lead to economic issues, terrorism, war,
instability, and mass hunger or disease, all of this through missed
opportunities which could be easily prevented.
Humanitarian aid and Development aid are two different
kinds of help provided by wealthier countries to those in need. Humanitarian
aid can go to anyone in the world whatever the political system is, it saves
lives and aims to alleviate suffering during a disaster and in the immediate
aftermath. Humanitarian aid goes right into the heart of the community affected
and offers an immediate solution to food, accommodation and medical problems. If
a natural disaster such as an earthquake strikes a country, or as a result of
conflict, short-term humanitarian aid is needed immediately. This will provide
immediate provision of food and water, temporary shelter and health services to
save lives.
Immediate humanitarian aid does not always have
to move on to development aid which provides prevention instead of cure. Development
aid helps the government rather than the community directly. Helping
infrastructure and systematic poverty that may slow down economic social and
institutional advancement. Development aid helps to ensure stronger communities
and enables long term improvement to life and preventing future disasters.
Development aid is long term and responds to systemic
problems focusing on economic and social development for a state to become
self-governing and stable with economic advancement.
Both Humanitarian and Development aid can work
together, and the aim is the long-term development into an effective society
that can participate successfully in global society. Development aid can exist
without Humanitarian aid and Humanitarian aid without Development aid.
It is in developed countries self-interest to give foreign
aid. Foreign aid has benefits for both the donating country as well as the
receiving country; creating jobs and aiding national security. Enhancing
diplomatic relations between the countries leads to many benefits to both
sides; trade deals and movement of people are more likely to be easier if ties
are made when in need of help. The recipient country could be asked to move to
a more democratic system, dictators or tyrants could be removed and more
peaceful and constructive relationships with the global community developed which
would benefit everyone.
In the interests of national security, places in
poverty with hunger, disease, warfare, instability, economic problems, lack of
shelter and medicines are a breeding ground for terrorism. Lifting people out
of poverty and giving opportunity helps in the fight against terrorism.
The UN has reported that the majority of the world’s
population lives in areas at risk of natural disasters, and this is expected to
increase as population increases and space to live becomes a premium as more
people move into cities that are already overpopulated (UN, 2018). So, it
becomes more important that governments honour their commitment to giving 0.7%
of their GDP as aid.
In the summer of 2021, the UK government voted to reduce
the amount spent on foreign aid from 0.7% to 0.5% of GDP. Letters in the press
say we should not make any foreign aid at all, and polls have reported that
majority of respondents wanted a reduction in the aid budget. The Archbishop of
Canterbury Justin Welby urged Prime Minister Boris Johnson not to go ahead with
cuts, saying that ‘helping the world's poorest is one of the great moral and
ethical achievements of our country’ (BBC, 2021). The reduction goes against a
manifesto promise and an agreement with the UN made with 30 other wealthy
countries in 1970 to give 0.7% of Gross Domestic Product as foreign aid, of
which only 7 countries have met the target and UK only met it in 2015. The UK
increasing rather than decreasing aid would encourage other states to provide
the same amount of aid, reducing it sends the wrong message. Most countries do
not meet the 0.7% obligation, only fourteen countries have met the obligation
since 1960 and USA, Australia and Japan have never met the target (Parliament
brief, 2021). At home, aid such as benefits are also regularly attacked. There
is ongoing political opposition to any aid. The argument is that the problems
of poverty and inequality are being fuelled by conflict, corruption and
political instability and that this makes foreign aid worthless. Foreign aid is
said to have made no difference so why carry on? The UK should not be helping
people overseas while cutting services at home. Another view is that if a
country has a large military budget, then aid should not be given, the country
should look after its own before spending on arms. But aid should not interfere
in a country’s internal affairs and should go to help those in need, that is
the priority.
A podcast discussion from the London School of
Economics has objections to aid
The UK spends a generous 0.7% of its Gross National
Income on overseas development aid each year managed by its Department for
International Development, or DFID. DFID’s website boasts that its work is
building a safer, healthier and more prosperous world, not just for people in
developing countries but also those in the UK. Despite this noble sentiment,
not everyone supports the concept of aid, complaining that it’s too costly,
that it aids corruption or that it is just another way for governments in
developed countries to meddle in other nations’ affairs. (Akello,
Al-Akhali, Green and Jablonski, 2021).
The majority of the UK’s aid goes to Pakistan,
Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Nigeria, Syria, Bangladesh, Somalia, South Sudan
as well as international work to defeat illnesses. It provides water
sanitation, hygiene products, food and medicine. The UK’s foreign aid policy is
defined to promote the economic development and welfare of developing
countries. The foreign aid budget was enacted into law as the 2015
International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act, which
obliged the government to meet the 0.7% target in 2022. The government is
saying that the reduction is only temporary until the economy recovers after
the COVID-19 pandemic.
Both governments and NGO’s provide aid, and it can be
said that the only reason charities exist is because governments fail in their obligations,
and it is a means for aid to get through without government interference. A
country could see aid as an attempt by foreign powers to gain unwanted ties and
influence in their internal affairs.
When the cold war came along in the 1950’s and 60’s,
opposing countries would try to get developing countries on their side.
Infrastructure would be financed by different countries, even the same road
could have different sections paid for by aid from different countries.
Military aid can be seen as a case of dirty hands,
doing wrong to do right. It is used in many instances where the government will
ask for military aid either to attack armed groups who are terrorising the
people or to help infrastructure to move aid to people who need it. The
military has the skills, equipment and manpower to enable aid of any kind to be
quickly put into place. People do not welcome foreign military so it can only
be used in carefully planned circumstances. An exit strategy needs to be made
before the military goes in as foreign military may well become a target to
unite the people of the country against.
Aid given from a wealthier or stronger country is a
mark of the peoples’ generosity and helps address the difference in wealth
between developed and developing countries and most importantly help save
lives. With over 50% of the world’s population living on less than $2 a day and
thousands of children dying every day through easily preventable diseases such
as diarrhoea, aid is vital to stop these deaths.
The world is a very wealthy place, but the wealth is
in the hands of a very few people and vast poverty exists in a large proportion
of the world’s population. Migration and travel are only affordable by the rich
of the world and only the rich have access to acceptable methods of travel. The
people who need to travel to improve their lives are denied access to acceptable
forms of travel. Governments take military action to stop migrant travel, these
include border checks and military intervention to force migrants to stop
travelling. They have to take risky forms of travel putting their lives at risk
to migrate to wealthier, safer countries.
Foreign aid does not have to go through governments,
private charities exist to provide targeted aid for a specific need or a
particular need or age group. Individuals can make their choices on which cause
to support and on how to support.
The World bank is involved in providing aid. It
provides low interest loans and grants to countries to aid infrastructure, help
to increase economic growth and improve the living conditions of those in
poverty. Money is also given directly to the sectors of education, water,
sanitation, agriculture and infrastructure without government involvement.
A Cosmopolitan view removes the questions that arise
with whether we should or should not give foreign aid, everyone is entitled to
basic human rights and improvement. A Political view will look after its own
within own borders first, any foreign interest will only come with an advantage
to themselves.
Aid should not be needed as local taxes should be in
place to benefit local people. But bad government, war and natural disasters
mean aid is needed. The cosmopolitan view is the best way to think about
providing foreign aid.
Cosmopolitan comes from the Greek word
kosmopolitēs (‘citizen of the world’). Cosmopolitanism is an ideology that
all people in the world are born with equal rights to food, shelter, health
care, education and opportunities. In this chapter I will show that cosmopolitanism
has many advantages over a political view with regards to global justice and
this will be shown to be the best way to provide foreign aid and ease world
poverty.
Cosmopolitanism is an ideology where differences are
recognised and understood in a compassionate way so as we all learn from each
other and progress in an understanding and mutually beneficial way. Learning
from others and embracing, understanding and diverse instead of all becoming
the same. Cosmopolitanism is rooted in equal respect and dignity of all people
and cultures. People come together from different parts of the world, and they
can pursue their own cultures and differences. Cosmopolitanism encourages this
diversity, tolerance and understanding of these differences.
There are many advantages to a cosmopolitan ideology. Cosmopolitanism
acknowledges a need to recognize and act on an individual’s membership in a
global community of human beings, we all have responsibilities to other members
of the global community. ‘The borders of states only restrict the justice and
are obstacles to obligations to others in the global community……’ (Brock, G.
(2015)’. Cosmopolitanism brings individuals out from local obligations to
obligations to distant people.
Cosmopolitanism ignores radicalism and extremism
because everyone is equal wherever they are born, whatever religion, race or
sexuality, no one is worse off, so there is no need for radicalism and
extremism as there is nothing to be jealous of. Radicalism and extremism are
hated everywhere. Nationalists, radicals and extremists suffer themselves
because of their ideas and actions, and do not have a happy life. Hatred makes
them angry and liable to attack. Political repression worsens people’s lives,
and radicals are always the first victims of every government. Cosmopolitans
are not blindingly attached to any country, radical ideology or movement, do
nothing to annoy governments and avoid bad outcomes. Therefore, they have a
happier life.
Cosmopolitanism ideas would stop the evil deeds of
mass murderers. Hitler, Mao Zedong, Rwandan genocide, repression of millions by
Stalin, North Korea, all these started from crazy and ridiculous ideas that
preoccupied the leaders’ minds and led to huge disaster. Being equally kind and
merciful to every person in the world would not divide people into groups, good
or bad for any reasons. Cosmopolitanism helps spread advancement and mercy not
hatred, inviting peace and love, instead of aggression and hatred, this makes
for a more open-minded and happier person. Cosmopolitanism resembles socialism
in that socialist governments make no difference between races, sex or
nationality. Cosmopolitans are free from crazy ideologies and so are open to
new knowledge and experiences.
Insead’s Linda Brimm has
identified five characteristics of a Global Cosmopolitan lifestyle. These are:
1 Global Cosmopolitans see change as normal.
2 As outsiders to fixed cultural rules, they rely on
creative thinking.
3 They reinvent themselves and experiment with new
identities.
4 They are expert at the subtle and emotional aspects
of transition.
5 They easily learn and use new ways of thinking.
(Brimm, 2018)
These are all skills that can influence our rapidly
changing dangerous world. Encouraging communication through travel and people
and accepting each other as equals and open to new ideas. A more outward
thinking or travelled person can learn and become more knowledgeable of others
way of life than one who does not see things at first hand. Intellectual and
spiritual advances are easier when learning about different environments by
observing. Learning and promoting diverse cultures and political systems mean
people are free to prosper and advance
Cosmopolitan history although tracing its roots back
to Ancient Greece, has come to prominence since World War Two.
Immediately after the Paris terrorist bombing in 2015
two international football teams, France and Germany, were playing and came
together to help shelter each other in the stadium from the threats outside.
Such camaraderie between French and German athletes would never have happened
until cosmopolitanism came to the fore in the second half of the 20th century.
Neither the freedoms we have enjoyed for decades, nor the way of life we enjoy
would have happened if the world hadn’t embraced cosmopolitanism in the
aftermath of World War Two and encouraged it amongst the next generation.
In the second half of the twentieth century people
scarred by the wars, death and destruction that inward thinking nationalism had
created began a new way of thinking.
The survivors of the horrors of WW2 had a seemingly
impossible dream, that people of different nations could live in peace and harmony.
This set-in motion a path to make a society more open, internationalist and
understanding of different culture for their children. Cosmopolitanism
began to take over from Nationalism.
At the end of WW2 when Europe was liberated, kindness
shown by the victorious Allied armies to the local populations left a lasting
image on most of the people. Parents before this rarely travelled and would
spend their lives in one place, but after seeing the kindness of the liberators
they encouraged their children to learn foreign languages, travel, live and
learn in other countries.
The next generation was encouraged to travel and
learn. Many youngsters from all over Europe would travel to UK or other
English-speaking countries to learn the language and culture.
Big cities all over the world began filling up with
first-generation cosmopolitans. People from areas destroyed by war flocked to
places that promised prosperity and opportunity. There would be curious
invaders of each other’s countries. A peaceful army sent to dismantle the
hatred caused from nationalism by the previous generation who’d suffered so
much death and destruction under the spread of nationalism. The parents would
see the travel as insurance against future wars and an aspiration for the
younger generations to learn other cultures and enjoy life in peace. If they
knew, learnt, dined, drank, entertained with others in different countries they
would be less likely to go to war, bomb and kill each other.
Locals and cosmopolitans can be found all over the
world with locals having strong allegiance to their local area, cosmopolitans
being more outward looking and seeking knowledge and expertise of other
peoples. The locals cannot imagine living anywhere else and accept the
cosmopolitans who are always preparing to seek out new ways of life.
Cosmopolitans have become a group of people who don’t
believe in groups. An individual based group connected by unlimited internet
access, trains and cheap airfares. They can be found in cities and become
settled in places tolerant of their thoughts, coffee shops, universities, and
multinational corporations that let them live the lifestyle and make a living
as they travel around. Cosmopolitanism rejects attempts to be put into groups
and once a group of cosmopolitans come together then the ideology becomes
unstable. If we let cosmopolitanism become too unstable and move away from the
core ideas, we will have betrayed the dreams and wasted the work of two
generations.
Cosmopolitanism is important at a global scale. The
world has a lot to offer, what one area lacks another is in abundance. Governments
have failed to grasp globalisation, concentrating on inward looking nationalist
ideas; but business has seized on this cosmopolitan idea.
Trade takes place all over the world. Fruit and
vegetables are available all year round all over the world. A car can have the
engine built in one part of the world, the body built, painted, assembly all
done in different country’s then transported to another country for sale. This
maximises profit and gives economic advancement and benefits to a wide range of
countries instead of just one. Trade between countries is encouraged as this
brings benefits to both, the country buying puts money into the supplying
country which then buys from others.
The American philosopher Martha Nussbaum argued in Patriotism
and Cosmopolitanism that we owe allegiance ‘to the worldwide community of
human beings,’ and that affiliation should be our number one loyalty and
commitment. The highest obligations are to fellow human beings, no matter where
they are in the world, and we have special relations to those close to us.
Diogenes the Cynic said he was a citizen of the world, meaning he refused to be
defined by local groups which was conventional Greek thinking. The Stoics
followed his lead arguing that everyone of us lives in two communities, the
local and humankind. The stoics where not against local governments or local
identities but said the first important considerations was to humankind
wherever they were born. (Nussbaum, 1996)
When globalization took off, cosmopolitans were ready
and able to help. They had the mindset and skills needed to deal with and
profit from the opening of global markets. Cosmopolitan enthusiasm was
redirected from a humanistic project to an economic one through business. If
most political leaders found removing borders and barriers hard or even
impossible to do, it was very easy for business leaders to ignore these
barriers in their hunt for profit. Cosmopolitanism led and embraced
globalization, setting out to turn the world into one big friendly intermingled
society, working and trading together, and using this to help provide foreign
aid to ease poverty and hunger. The business network and practises would help
in the movement of aid to where it was needed from where it is abundant.
International trade benefits all sides, the buyer gets goods at the best price,
the seller gets the income that increases their economy and then they become
the buyer, roles are constantly reversed, buyer becoming seller and seller
becoming buyer. As wealth increases so the need for foreign aid becomes less.
While they might sound similar, cosmopolitanism is not the same as
globalization. Cosmopolitanism is personal, globalization a relentless business
and political led socio-economic force. Cosmopolitanism strives to humanize the
differences in the world, globalization seeks to use these differences to join
and make one community with the aim being either political or economic. The
challenge is to stop globalization being only about creating wealth and to
encourage foreign aid. In order to keep diversity and lifting people out of
poverty focus on using the infrastructure and contacts made by businesses
trading to enable easier and more fluid movement of aid.
Organizations that bring together states are the United
Nations and World Health Organization. 194 countries are members of the World
Health Organization, and they have a commitment to a detailed human rights
agreement. The WHO Constitution (1946) gives a commitment to
…the highest attainable standard of health as a
fundamental right of every human being…Understanding health as a human right
creates a legal obligation on states to ensure access to timely, acceptable,
and affordable health care of appropriate quality as well as to providing for
the underlying determinants of health, such as safe and potable water,
sanitation, food, housing, health-related information and education, and gender
equality.’ (WHO, 2017)
Agreements are signed with United Nations and World
Health Organization on behalf of the individuals in states and so the people of
the state are committed to the agreements through their governments.
Cosmopolitanism promotes a global democracy of
individual states and ethnic groups, where all people should be able to take
part in decision-making. This does not have to lead to a world government, but
to different cultures and peoples living in their own communities and working
in a more tolerant and understanding way to each other.
‘…all human beings, regardless of their political
affiliation, are (or can and should be) citizens in a single community.’
community among all human beings, regardless of social and political
affiliation. Difficult to change the current system of states, but the UN is an
example of a world organisation (Kleingeld, and Brown, 2019)
A right to good health starts with and is dependent on
access to clean drinking water, food, shelter and medicine and as states have
signed up to the WHO agreement then they are obliged to ensure these needs are
met to all in the world not just their own country’s inhabitants. These are
best achieved by the advantage’s cosmopolitanism offers.
Attacks on cosmopolitanism come from those discontent
with globalization and who have resentment to minorities, immigrants and
intellectuals. There is a rise of nationalism taking place in the last few
years around the world. In Europe and the United States movements are appearing
such as alt-right pushing extremist propaganda, racism and xenophobia into the mainstream.
Cosmopolitans are being portrayed as detached and elitist. Migration is
discouraged, when it should be encouraged in order to meet the needs of each
side, workers are needed in different parts of the world at different times and
movement of people across borders satisfies this. Nationalism discourages
integration and movement of people to other countries, an inward-looking view.
A person who is influenced by a variety of cultures,
worldly and well-travelled is more understanding of others’ needs. Staying in
one place and holding onto inward thinking is not essential in the formation or
upkeep of one’s identity. An individual can pick and choose from a wide range
of cultural views or reject all in favour of another noncultural option.
Cosmopolitanism is more open and accepting.
The alternative to cosmopolitanism is the political view,
which has two important parts; nationalist and patriotic, this view has few if
any advantages over cosmopolitanism.
4
Political
view; Nationalism and Patriotism
Nationalism sweeping through the globe can be seen as a
rejection of globalization. Loss of jobs to cheaper labour in other parts of
the world, migration and the threat that it poses to local social hierarchies.
Nationalism is a way for those hurt by the cultural and economic blows of
globalization to fight back.
Nationalism is the most common ideology people think
of when mentioning the political view. Cosmopolitanism is outward looking and
open to learn from other cultures. Nationalism is the opposite, inward looking
and only aims to advance its own people within its borders. Strongly believing
in self-determination and no interference from outside.
In a Nationalist state the leaders will make and
implement foreign policy on behalf of the citizens. These leaders
come from different backgrounds including political parties, interest groups,
civil society organizations, and individual decision makers (e.g., presidents,
politicians, lawmakers). They can construct a national identity in order to
achieve goals, such as strategic and economic needs to advance the nation and
become stronger and more prosperous. States may adopt foreign policies that
seem irrational but are consistent with a purported national character.
Nationalism has many different agendas that can vary
significantly between countries. Within the same country the aims and goals can
vary over time. There is little to unite different nationalist countries except
agreement that there should be no outside interference.
In the entry entitled Nationalism in the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy Croatian philosopher Nenad Miscevic gives a
description of Nationalism as;
…defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or
cultural ties, and specifically about whether an individual’s membership in a
nation should be regarded as non-voluntary or voluntary…whether
self-determination must be understood as involving having full statehood with
complete authority over domestic and international affairs... (Miscevic, 2020)
The state needs a strong stable identity to cope with
threats from an unpredictable international environment. Wars can lead to a stronger
nationalist country as the people become united behind their leaders. Being prone to
war can affect the balance of power and can have significant detrimental
effects on the development of economic and social advances. The state will attempt
to expand outwards spreading the ideology, invading its neighbours. Even in
defeat the people will be encouraged to celebrate as victorious and have a
sense of togetherness and pride. Nationalism can give some international
stability, as states agree trade deals and understandings with others. But
small rivalries can escalate and easily lead to conflict as each side refuses
to give way. Interstate disputes and historic rivalry can be brought to the
forefront of public opinion by the government in order to carry on with the
status quo within the state. Nation-states may be focused on military and wary
of their neighbours because they are often established through war and
subsequently carry adversarial memories of their neighbours.
Nationalism has a long
history and can be thought of as an expansion of small groups. When individuals
come together this turns into a group. Small groups can quickly become a mass
of people as they come together with similar thoughts. It is easier to complete
tasks; collecting food in a group, building accommodation, these groups
increase in size and eventually identify as a nation-state. This can generate
public opinion, and produce a national identity, flag waving, songs and
uniforms can enforce this identity. This can be seen as analogous to a music
festival where a leader of a band can get the whole crowd to sing along, follow
chants, clapping in time. This nationalist pride can be passed down from
generation to generation and becomes a main part of the country’s make up. It
becomes necessary to internalize the identity and, as a group, to jointly
protect and enhance their shared identity and act as one mass of people
following a leadership.
Cheque-book
diplomacy via foreign aid is giving aid to states who are considered friendly
in return for something that benefits the donating country. Conditions can be
attached such that countries that agree to democratize or become more aligned receive
more aid, to the detriment of needier people elsewhere. These conditions are
often opposed and seen as interference in a country’s independence and
sovereignty but if the receiving country is in dire need, it will be forced to
accept.
An example is
of China providing arms to the Philippines
It’s hard to
tell where China’s aid stops, and investment begins. In the case of the Philippines,
for example, China donated 3,000 assault rifles in June for a fight
then against Muslim rebels. It expected nothing back. But China and the
relatively impoverished Philippines also have talked for the past year about
funding for two railway projects at a combined $8.3 billion. It seems
China will take a cut of proceeds from the eventual Philippine train service.
(Jennings, 2017).
Military aid
with a trade deal that the donating Chinese benefit from.
China gets
something back in return. Most of China’s aid is considered to be this kind of concessional
financing or cheque-book diplomacy. Myanmar among others have complained about
Chinese control of natural resources following an aid-investment
push.
In its outward
aid, China does provide funds and in-kind contributions for poverty
alleviation, but it also is an advocate of the concept of ‘development
finance,’ in which a substantial portion of foreign aid is framed as
investment, where it is entirely reasonable for the Chinese to seek to make a
profit and pursue their own interests in the deal (Jennings, 2017)
The Soviet Union bid for the Aswan Dam in Egypt, at
the same time they offered loans with lower interest rates than the U.S. and
the United Kingdom. The aim was to move the Egyptians away from the West. This
was a well thought out political strategy: ‘…an analysis of Soviet aid during
the Cold War era shows that aid was used to reward (or punish) other countries
for their foreign-policy positions’ (Asmus, Fuchs, Muller, 2018). Russia stopped
most of its aid activities in the 1990s due to the economic decline following
the end of the Soviet Union. In the mid-2000s Russia took steps towards giving
foreign aid again. Russia’s aid programme seeks to ‘create a belt of good neighbourliness
along the Russian national borders,’ and ‘strengthen the credibility of Russia
and promote an unbiased attitude to the Russian Federation…influence global
processes with a view to establishing a stable, fair and democratic world
order.’ (Asmus, Fuchs, Muller, 2018). Examples are giving agricultural
machinery to Nicaragua, Russian trucks for humanitarian operations in Afghanistan,
assistance in Guinea to prevent the spread of Ebola, and humanitarian and food
aid to Syria. The majority of Russian aid projects go towards education,
health, food, security, and public finance, debt relief and loans are also offered.
If we see nationalism as powerful and well-disciplined
then we see a dark side of nationalism. In Nationalism and Foreign
Policy by Harris Mylonas and Kendrick Kuo
Internal domestic harmony can be created by
nationalism, but any groups who are not part of the identify can be made
scapegoats and discriminated against. When nationalism becomes more popular and
gains strength this in-group/out-group boundary can become a conflict
(Mylonas and Kuo, 2017)
Nationalism does not like anyone not part of their
group, and international cooperation is not compatible so little importance is
given to foreign aid. Nationalists will only give foreign aid once the members
of their own society are well looked after; foreign aid is not at the top of a
nationalist country’s agenda; they aim to help only their own people and any
help to foreign nations would be low down on the list of priorities.
To compare nationalism and cosmopolitanism David
Miller’s essay The Ethics of Nationality says we have special
obligations to our fellow nation citizens, and these give social attachments, and
obligations to the other members. Loyalty is to a general public and not to
smaller groups such as family. Nationality is important for our identity and having
a national identity means owing special obligations to fellow members of the
nation but not to other nations. This is the opposite of the cosmopolitan view
that each human should be equal no matter where in the world they are. A basic human
instinct is to help the less well off, but if we take care of the less well off
in our immediate vicinity which are suffering much less than people in other
parts of the world, then this means less attention and aid is not given to
those who need it more and who are not local, turning a blind eye to those many
miles away. The nationalist argument is that it is better for local people to
provide aid locally. ‘…each person should look after their own family first,
next their immediate neighbours, then after those other members of their local
community, and so forth…’ (Miller, 1995 p286). Local people looking after local
needs are more efficient as they will know what is needed from whom and when. Local
knowledge means the help can go directly where it is needed. Each state is
responsible for its own citizens. Physical proximity and administrative needs
mean that responsibility for people many miles away cannot be held in the same
manner.
Nations are unequal in their ability to look after
their own people, they all have different economies and if a well-off nation
was to help only their own and a poor country help only their own then the poor
country would suffer greater than it needs to, it wouldn’t take much for the
more well-off country to help bring a poorer country out from poverty without
damaging their own lifestyle. People can put their heads in the sand, obey the
law, let the government deal with foreign aid and policy but governments cannot
always look after their own. Disasters such as famines may be caused by
naturally occurring disasters or as a result from the wrong decisions being
made.
Nationalism aims to protect the local economy through
the introduction of trade barriers and tolls, the national economy will be
strengthened, which can lead to an overall improvement in wealth for the local
population. From a financial standpoint, nationalism can increase the wealth of
locals, at least in the short run and any leftover can be used for foreign aid.
As the country makes more money the leaders can allocate funds and the means
for aid to get to where it’s needed. Nationalism can unite a country, especially
in difficult economic and social times, it is crucial that people believe in
their nation in order to stay motivated and carry out their work. In difficult
times, people can get frustrated, and the social tensions increase
significantly leaving people open to be taken up in a wave of nationalism as
blame is apportioned to others.
Nationalism is similar to patriotism and the two words
are often used to mean the same thing, but nationalism differs from patriotism
significantly. Nationalism is inward looking and elitist. Nationalists believe
members of their country are better than everyone else and should be protected
from other nations, any interference is strongly defended against. Patriotism
is more sentimental and looks to other states to learn from, takes pride in
what their country does for other states. In a successful society a patriot
will help to provide aid to other less well-off states.
The journalist Sydney J Harris said,
…the difference between patriotism and nationalism is
that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist
is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a
feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of blind arrogance that
leads to war. (Harris, 1970)
Patriotism is a fondness to a country, the love and
affection for the place where an individual is born, brought up, and the nation
that place is a member of. These attachments can be linked to ethnic, cultural,
political, or historical contexts. Patriotism is also being proud of a
country’s values but with an enthusiasm and readiness to improve and make
living conditions better. Patriotism acknowledges the patriotism of citizens of
other countries and respects their values. It includes a set of concepts
closely linked to those of nationalism.
Patriots will not always stand blindly behind the
leaders. Those who opposed National Socialism in early-mid twentieth century
Germany had to go under the radar and keep quiet about their belief that the
government was wrong. Opposing meant they were patriots as they have the good
of the country upper most in their minds, whereas a nationalist blindly follows
their leaders. Patriots will question decisions made at government level if
they don’t agree, but often they have to remain quiet due to repercussions.
Patriotism is the service a citizen provides to the nation, not keeping to a
particular political organization or group. Nationalism is the very ideals,
motives, impressions that are going on inside a country.
Patriots live with other cultures and want to advance
in competition and respect to others, learning from and implementing ideas to
improve. A patriot loves his country and is proud of it for what it does in an
international arena, without detriment to others. Nationalism is about identity
and power. A patriot would give aid and feel proud that the country is helping,
a nationalist would have a hidden purpose or secret plans behind the aid,
looking to make deals exclusively or wanting access to resources in return, in
order to advance themselves aid is only given with ulterior motives
Nationalist people believe that their nation is
superior to other nations. Patriots believe that all nations are equal and can
be improved in many ways. That’s why freedom fighters are considered patriotic
if they believe they are fighting to improve the populations way of life. Patriotism
enables people to understand the shortcomings and be open to others help in any
improvements that can be made.
Robert E Goodin talks about ‘special duties’ that
‘bind particular people to particular other people’. He says that there is a
‘moral significance of relationships with others’, family, friends and
neighbours. Living within national boundaries gives us a sense of well-being
that allow us to fulfil commitments to a state. Both contributing and receiving
benefits from the infrastructure and strength that a nation can give. This
leads to a special relationship with compatriots, but this does not have to be
detrimental to commitments to non-compatriots. He says ‘...we owe more to our
fellow countrymen and less to foreigners.’
Then gives an argument for treating foreigners better than our own
compatriots but still insists that we look after the interests of our own first
as long as there are reasonable grounds to do so. Less but not non, this is
both a nationalist and patriotic view, a cosmopolitan would owe the same to
both fellow countrymen and foreigners. Goodin says there are duties we have
toward people because they are of our group, and special duties we owe to particular
individuals because they hold some special relation to us, family, friends,
colleagues and countrymen. (Goodin, 1988)
The migration and
refugee crisis of recent times has highlighted problems with the human instinct
of helping those who turn up at borders, welcoming them and treat them as
equals. The causes of the crisis are still the same ones that cosmopolitans
have always tried to help with; wars, unequal global distribution of wealth and
goods, illnesses and climate disasters. Nationalism’s inward looking and
putting up barriers to keep migrants out does not help but seeks to stop this
help, only a cosmopolitan viewpoint can provide this help and welcome migrants.
Conclusion
Nationalism
and patriotism are more than just waving flags and singing songs, extremist
elements use the idea of the nation group and the patriotic ties that bind the
community together twisting them in their favour and end up ultimately damaging
the country. All people in the world should work together and advance together.
Though there is nothing wrong with having special obligations to those close to
us, ignoring all others not part of the group causes much damage, especially to
those in need. Helping others is instinctive to us as humans.
A patriotic
viewpoint would be preferable to a nationalist view, as it is open to
understanding of others needs and cultures; but patriots still have their own
country’s interests above all others. Due to their inward-looking stances
neither can come close to cosmopolitanism as a way of providing aid to the
needy of the world and creating a more equal and mutually beneficial world.
Cosmopolitanism
shares a lot with socialism, ignoring gender, race, place of birth, but
socialism always leads to nationalism. China, Russia, North Korea are all
nationalist states that started from socialist ideas. Nationalism leads to wars
and aggression as they try to expand and find ways to make their own population
more advanced, at the expense of others, or just to keep egotistical leaders in
power.
This makes
cosmopolitanism ideas more able to provide aid than the political views of nationalism
and patriotism.
Cosmopolitanism
is the best ideology for providing foreign aid. Political views leading to
Nationalism and Patriotism hinder foreign aid.
10282 words approx.
Bibliography;
Akello, G., Al-Akhali, R.A.A., Green, D. and
Jablonski, R. (2021)
<https://podcasts.podinstall.com/london-school-economics-and-political-science-lse-iq-podcast/201807031200-lse-iq-episode-16-do-we-need-rethink-foreign-aid.html>
accessed 20/7/21
Asmus, G., Fuchs, A., Müller A., (2018)
<https://www.aiddata.org/blog/russias-foreign-aid-re-emerges#:~:text=Russia%20is%20anything%20but%20new%20to%20the%20foreign,the%20United%20States%E2%80%99%20aid%20contributions%20at%20the%20time.>
Accessed 19/8/21
Barry, C. (2018) Redistribution, The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/redistribution/>.
accessed 12/7/21
BBC, (2021)
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57860963> accessed 5/6/21
Beitz, C. R. (2000) ‘Rawls’s law of peoples’, Ethics,
vol. 110, no. 4, pp. 669–96.
Brimm, L. (2018) The Global Cosmopolitan Mindset:
Lessons From The New Global Leaders Jabs, L B. Choice; Middletown Vol. 56,
Iss. 4, (Dec 2018): pp508.
Brock, G. (2015).
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/cosmopolitanism-philosophy>
accessed 30/7/21
Goodin, R.E., (1988) What Is So Special About Our
Fellow Countrymen? 1988 In The Global Justice Reader ed Thom Brooks 2017)
Harris, S. (1970) Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
16 Sep 1970, Page 41 <<https://www.newspapers.com/clip/24797078/sydney-j-harris-patriotism-vs/>>
accessed 26/8/21
Jennings, R. (2017)
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphjennings/2017/12/22/china-is-giving-more-foreign-aid-than-it-gets/?sh=449d45754f35>
accessed 19/8/21
Kleingeld, P. and Brown, E. 2002
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmopolitanism/
accessed 30/7/21
Miller, D. (1995) On Nationality, Oxford,
Clarendon Press.
Miller, D., 1995. The Ethics of Nationality, In
The Global Justice Reader ed Thom Brooks 2017
Miscevic, N. 2001 Nationalism, The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/nationalism/
>accessed 17/8/21
Mylonas, H. and Kuo, K. (2017)
<https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.452>
accessed
17/8/21
Nagel, T. (2005) The Problem of Global Justice,
Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 113–47.
Nussbaum, M, (1996). Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism,
In The Global Justice Reader ed Thom Brooks 2017)
Parliament brief, 2021.
<https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn03714/>
accessed 15/7/21
Pogge, T. W. (2008) World Poverty and Human Rights,
2nd edn, Cambridge, Polity.
Rawls, J. (1993a) Political Liberalism, New York,
Columbia University Press.
Rawls, J. (1993) ‘The law of peoples’, Critical
Inquiry, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 36–68.
Rawls, J. (1999) A Theory of Justice (rev.
ed.), Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Scheffler, S. (2002) Boundaries and Allegiances:
Problems of Justice and Responsibility in Liberal Thought, Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
UNOCHA, 2012.
<https://www.unocha.org/sites/dms/Documents/OOM-humanitarianprinciples_eng_June12.pdf>.
accessed 12/5/21
UN, 2018. <https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-cities-day-2018.html>
accessed 18/7/21
WHO, 2017,
<https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/human-rights-and-health>
accessed 20/7/21?
----------------------------------------------------------