The discourse of energy supplies and human rights

Being Dutch and probably exemplary for what poldering is myself I am a great believer of silent advocacy. However – there is one thing that is greatly frustrating about silent advocacy: that it’s silent. West-European’s dependency on energy suppliers such as for instance Russia or resources in the Middle East are in many cases creating an obvious vacuum to social and human rights which we strive for. It is clear that countries want to become less depending from such suppliers, but which steps are they actually taking in this regard?

Next week I will be visiting Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. The first country is increasingly an independent energy supplier, which for obvious geographical reasons is still depending on Russia for distribution. Kazakhstan is aiming at chairing the OSCE (Organization for Security Cooperation Europe) from 2009 onwards. Several EU member states are supportive to this, merely for economical reasons. Others are not, obviously for more social reasons. Netherlands is supportive, and is currently the second biggest investor in the country, having setup a variety of trade-missions. Through a long-term empowerment program we have in addition been enabled to build-up LGBT organizations to fight against the rising hiv/aids epidemic and strive for better social rights.

Now I do believe that economical opportunities seize chances to combine profitable economic projects with demands for better social rights. Let’s call it social-economic synergy. But it is frustrating how invisible such processes are – as they make it difficult to call for additional measures, or even set certain conditions. Of course, human rights can never only be the change that a country gives for economic profits – as I believe that a true implementation of social rights and human rights needs a sincere believe and understanding of their applicable discourses. But incentives do open doors, raise awareness and demonstrate respect to the principles and values of social and human rights that we ought to consider minimal to each person in this world.

As an ideologist I do believe that maybe next to the daily stock rates we should measure our wellbeing with daily ‘happiness’ indexes. As a pragmatist I do also believe that different sets of indicators will increase the willingness to start working on political change that is socially need based instead of power policy driven. Another interesting barometer would of course be understandable and challenging emission indexes – but that's another story.