GLOBALIZATION AND ITS VICTIMS

GLOBALIZATION AND ITS VICTIMS

The wobbly train of globalization makes its next stop in Quebec City, Canada, next month for the Summit of the Americas. The creation of a free-trade zone for the Americas will be top on the agenda of the summit that unites 34 countries in the Americas excluding Cuba. Expectedly, the stationmasters of globalization, jittery as ever, are fortifying the city- a ban has been placed on the use of scarves- against those opposed to the apocalypse of globalization and its trademark, transnational corporations and multi-lateral financial institutions.

After the Seattle debacle of November 1999, the apostles of globalization seem to have upped their intolerance. They showed how fiercely opposed they are to freedom of expression late January in Davos, Switzerland. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has taken this high-handedness one step further by moving its next ministerial meeting in November to Doha, Qatar, where it is a crime to protest and there is no freedom of assembly.

Interestingly, while those whom one writer has described as the board of directors of Planet Earth met in Fortress Davos to cut deals on how the rest of us lesser mortals would live, the victims of globalization met in the southern Brazilian city of Porto Alegre. For those who think globalization is the only way, the Porto Alegre meeting provided a reassuring alternative to the hegemony of corporations which globalization is advocating.

Before Davos there were anti-globalization protests in Washington, Prague and Windsor (Canada). The protesters were from all walks of life, from the developed and developing countries. Like those who upset the WTO in Seattle, they have one thing in common: their opposition to the WTO and other institutions and policies that seek to dismantle all barriers to global trade that is characterized by corporate rule.

The rising chorus of anti-globalization protests means that people around the world are concerned about the dangers of a corporate takeover of the political landscape. But their concern means little to those who think their agenda of corporate rule is the final world in economic development.

More often than not, the tendency is to demonize anti-globalization activists. They are accused of trying to stop the tide of development that is set to sweep the world once globalization is entrenched. The proponents of globalization seem to be asking: What is wrong in opening up Africa and the Third World to trade? What is wrong in making the latest technological gadgets available to the millions of Mayan Indians in Chiapas or Aborigines in Australia? Certainly, millions of children roaming the streets of Laos and Cambodia barefoot would look better with Reebok and Nike sneakers.

British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has called for “force and determination” to stop those opposed to globalization. During his recent visit to Canada, he argued that they should not “be allowed to stand in the way of rational argument”. What is this argument? It is, as stated in the British government December 2000 white paper on globalization: “globalization means the growing interdependence and interconnectedness of the modern world….managed wisely, the new wealth created by globalization creates the opportunity to lift millions of the world’s poorest people out of their poverty”

According to Mike Moore, director-general of the WTO, “just as liberating trade in goods has boosted economic growth over the last 50 years so liberalizing trade in services could bring about huge benefits over the next 50”. This argument is in support of the fears raised by the WTO services negotiations.

But these words by the managers of globalization are not comforting; in fact, they mean nothing. The issue here is not about trade or global trade for that matter. Trade has gone on among nations for centuries. Does it surprise anyone that even in the remotest part of the world where people have no access to portable water, you are sure to find a Coca-Cola or Pepsi shed?

The issue is about rules. Who sets the rules and who benefits most from these rules? It is about the unjust economic principles that weigh heavily against the developing world. It is about policies like the WTO’s services agreement which, like the dreaded Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), sets the rules for foreign intervention in the services sector of WTO member nations.

If people are alarmed by the doctrine of globalization, it is simply because there is reason to be. To paraphrase one of the reports of the Porto Alegre meeting, world trade has expanded 17 times more than it was 50 years ago. Within this period, Latin America’s share of world trade has fallen from 11% to 5% and Africa’s from 8% to 2%.

There is nothing to show that an expansion in global trade along the current line advocated by the agents of globalization will solve the problem of poverty in the developing world; if anything, the expansion of trade and investment will only enhance the profit of TNCs. What globalization seeks to do is to break down whatever barriers are left in the economic relationship between the metropolitan countries in the grip of TNCs and their former colonies.

In Porto Alegre, Egyptian economist, Samir Amin, called globalization “a new phase of the imperialist expansion of capital, a fig leaf to hide imperialism itself.” It is unfortunate that African and Third World governments have accepted this neo-liberal ideology without question. And like many of their forerunners, they are willing to become gatekeepers for multi-national corporations.

Globalization will exacerbate the present unfair economic structures. The West is pushing the agenda not minding the human and material costs to its victims because it is ultimately in their interest.

Onumah, a freelance journalist, lives in Ontario, Canada.