-
Twenty years ago,
-
when I was a barrister
and human rights lawyer
-
in full-time legal practice in London,
-
and the highest court in the land
-
still convened, some would say
by an accident of history,
-
in this building here,
-
I met a young man
who had just quit his job
-
in the British Foreign Office.
-
When I asked him, "Why did you leave,"
-
he told me this story.
-
He had gone to his boss
one morning and said,
-
"Let's do something
about human rights abuses in China."
-
And his boss had replied,
-
"We can't do anything
about human rights abuses in China
-
because we have
trade relations with China."
-
So my friend went away
with his tail between his legs,
-
and six months later,
he returned again to his boss,
-
and he said this time,
-
"Let's do something
about human rights in Burma,"
-
as it was then called.
-
His boss once again paused
-
and said, "Oh, but we can't
do anything about human rights in Burma
-
because we don't have
any trade relations with Burma."
-
(Laughter)
-
This was the moment
he knew he had to leave.
-
It wasn't just the hypocrisy
that got to him.
-
It was the unwillingness of his government
-
to engage in conflict
with other governments,
-
intense discussions,
-
all the while, innocent people
were being harmed.
-
We are constantly told
-
that conflict is bad
-
that compromise is good;
-
that conflict is bad
-
but consensus is good;
-
that conflict is bad
-
and collaboration is good.
-
But in my view,
-
that's far too simple
a vision of the world.
-
We cannot know
-
whether conflict is bad
-
unless we know who is fighting,
-
why they are fighting
-
and how they are fighting.
-
And compromises can be thoroughly rotten
-
if they harm people
who are not at the table,
-
people who are vulnerable, disempowered,
-
people whom we have
an obligation to protect.
-
Now, you might be
somewhat skeptical of a lawyer
-
arguing about the benefits of conflict
-
and creating problems for compromise,
-
but I did also qualify as a mediator,
-
and these days, I spend my time
giving talks about ethics for free.
-
So as my bank manager likes to remind me,
I'm downwardly mobile.
-
But if you accept my argument,
-
it should change not just the way
we lead our personal lives,
-
which I wish to put
to one side for the moment,
-
but it will change the way
we think about major problems
-
of public health and the environment.
-
Let me explain.
-
Every middle schooler
in the United States,
-
my 12-year-old daughter included,
-
learns that there are
three branches of government,
-
the legislative, the executive
and the judicial branch.
-
James Madison wrote,
-
"If there is any principle
more sacred in our Constitution,
-
and indeed in any free constitution,
-
than any other,
-
it is that which separates
-
the legislative, the executive
and the judicial powers."
-
Now, the framers were not just concerned
-
about the concentration
and exercise of power.
-
They also understood
the perils of influence.
-
Judges cannot determine
the constitutionality of laws
-
if they participate in making those laws,
-
nor can they hold the other branches
of government accountable
-
if they collaborate with them
-
or enter into close
relationships with them.
-
The Constitution is,
as one famous scholar put it,
-
"an invitation to struggle."
-
And we the people are served
-
when those branches do, indeed,
struggle with each other.
-
Now, we recognize
the importance of struggle
-
not just in the public sector
-
between our branches of government.
-
We also know it too in the private sector,
-
in relationships among corporations.
-
Let's imagine that two American airlines
get together and agree
-
that they will not drop the price
-
of their economy class airfares
below 250 dollars a ticket.
-
That is collaboration,
some would say collusion,
-
not competition,
-
and we the people are harmed
-
because we pay more for our tickets.
-
Imagine similarly
two airlines were to say,
-
"Look, Airline A, we'll take
the route from LA to Chicago,"
-
and Airline B says, "We'll take
the route from Chicago to DC,
-
and we won't compete."
-
Once again, that's collaboration
or collusion instead of competition,
-
and we the people are harmed.
-
So we understand
the importance of struggle
-
when it comes to relationships
between branches of government,
-
the public sector.
-
We also understand
the importance of conflict
-
when it comes to relationships
among corporations,
-
the private sector.
-
But where we have forgotten it
-
is in the relationships
between the public and the private.
-
And governments all over the world
are collaborating with industry
-
to solve problems of public health
and the environment,
-
often collaborating
with the very corporations
-
that are creating or exacerbating
the problems they are trying to solve.
-
We are told that these relationships
-
are a win-win.
-
But what if someone is losing out?
-
Let me give you some examples.
-
A United Nations agency
decided to address a serious problem:
-
poor sanitation in schools in rural India.
-
They did so not just in collaboration
with national and local governments
-
but also with a television company
-
and with a major
multinational soda company.
-
In exchange for less
than one million dollars,
-
that corporation received the benefits
of a months-long promotional campaign
-
including a 12-hour telethon
-
all using the company's logo
and color scheme.
-
This was an arrangement
-
which was totally understandable
-
from the corporation's point of view.
-
It enhances the reputation of the company
-
and it creates brand loyalty
for its products.
-
But in my view,
-
this is profoundly problematic
for the intergovernmental agency,
-
an agency that has a mission
to promote sustainable living.
-
By increasing consumption
of sugar-sweetened beverages
-
made from scarce local water supplies
and drunk out of plastic bottles
-
in a country that is already
grappling with obesity,
-
this is neither sustainable
from a public health
-
nor an environmental point of view.
-
And in order to solve
one public health problem,
-
the agency is sowing the seeds
-
of another.
-
This is just one example
of dozens I discovered
-
in researching a book on the relationships
between government and industry.
-
I could also have told you
about the initiatives in parks
-
in London and throughout Britain,
-
involving the same company,
promoting exercise,
-
or indeed of the British government
creating voluntary pledges
-
in partnership with industry
-
instead of regulating industry.
-
These collaborations or partnerships
have become the paradigm in public health,
-
and once again, they make sense
from the point of view of industry.
-
It allows them to frame
public health problems and their solutions
-
in ways that are least threatening to,
-
most consonant with
their commercial interests.
-
So obesity becomes a problem
-
of individual decision-making,
-
of personal behavior,
-
personal responsibility
and lack of physical activity.
-
It is not a problem,
-
when framed this way,
-
of a multinational food system
involving major corporations.
-
And again, I don't blame industry.
-
Industry naturally engages
in strategies of influence
-
to promote its commercial interests.
-
But governments have a responsibility
-
to develop counterstrategies
-
to protect us
-
and the common good.
-
The mistake that governments are making
-
when they collaborate in this way
-
with industry
-
is that they conflate
-
the common good
-
with common ground.
-
When you collaborate with industry,
-
you necessarily put off the table
-
things that might promote the common good
to which industry will not agree.
-
Industry will not agree
to increased regulation
-
unless it believes this will
stave off even more regulation
-
or perhaps knock some competitors
out of the market.
-
Nor can companies agree
to do certain things,
-
for example raise the prices
of their unhealthy products,
-
because that would violate
competition law,
-
as we've established.
-
So our governments should not confound
-
the common good and common ground,
-
especially when common ground
means reaching agreement with industry.
-
I want to give you another example,
-
moving from high-profile collaboration
-
to something that is below ground
-
both literally and figuratively:
-
the hydraulic fracturing of natural gas.
-
Imagine that you purchase a plot of land
-
not knowing the mineral rights
have been sold.
-
This is before the fracking boom.
-
You build your dream home on that plot,
-
and shortly afterwards,
-
you discover that a gas company
is building a well pad on your land.
-
That was the plight
of the Hallowich family.
-
Within a very short period of time,
-
they began to complain of headaches,
-
of sore throats, of itchy eyes,
-
in addition to the interference
of the noise, vibration
-
and the bright lights
from the flaring of natural gas.
-
They were very vocal in their criticisms,
-
and then they fell silent.
-
And thanks to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,
where this image appeared,
-
and one other newspaper,
we discovered why they fell silent.
-
The newspapers went to the court and said,
"What happened to the Hallowiches?"
-
And it turned out the Hallowiches
had made a secret settlement
-
with the gas operators, and it was
a take-it-or-leave-it settlement.
-
The gas company said,
-
you can have a six-figure sum
-
to move elsewhere
and start your lives again,
-
but in return
-
you must promise not to speak
of your experience with our company,
-
not to speak of your
experience with fracking,
-
not to speak about the health consequences
-
that might have been revealed
by a medical examination.
-
Now, I do not blame
the Hallowiches for accepting
-
a take-it-or-leave-it settlement
-
and starting their lives elsewhere.
-
And one can understand
-
why the company would wish
to silence a squeaky wheel.
-
What I want to point the finger at
is the legal and regulatory system,
-
a system in which there are
networks of agreements
-
just like this one
-
which serve to silence people
and seal off data points
-
from public health experts
and epidemiologists,
-
a system in which regulators
-
will even refrain
from issuing a violation notice
-
in the event of pollution
-
if the landowner and the gas company
-
agree to settle.
-
This is a system which isn't just
bad from a public health point of view;
-
it exposes hazards to local families
-
who remain in the dark.
-
Now, I have given you two examples
not because they are isolated examples.
-
They are examples of a systemic problem.
-
I could share some counterexamples,
-
the case for example
of the public official
-
who sues the pharmaceutical company
-
for concealing the fact
-
that its antidepressant increases
suicidal thoughts in adolescents.
-
I can tell you about the regulator
who went after the food company
-
for exaggerating the purported
health benefits of its yogurt.
-
And I can tell you about the legislator
-
who despite heavy lobbying
directed at both sides of the aisle
-
pushes for environmental protections.
-
These are isolated examples,
-
but they are beacons of light
in the darkness,
-
and they can show us the way.
-
I began by suggesting that sometimes
we need to engage in conflict.
-
Governments should tussle with,
-
struggle with, at times engage
in direct conflict with corporations.
-
This is not because governments
are inherently good
-
and corporations are inherently evil.
-
Each is capable of good or ill.
-
But corporations understandably
act to promote their commercial interests,
-
and they do so either sometimes
undermining or promoting the common good.
-
But it is the responsibility
of governments
-
to protect and promote the common good.
-
And we should insist
-
that they fight to do so.
-
This is because governments
-
are the guardians
-
of public health;
-
governments are the guardians
-
of the environment;
-
and it is governments
-
that are guardians
-
of these essential parts
of our common good.
-
Thank you.
-
(Applause)