5 July 2001 Edition
Globalisation Wars
In the first of a series of articles on the battle against globalisation, JUSTIN MORAN explains the issues that are at stake.
Some have called it the End of Geography, a mocking reference to Fukuyama's book on the triumph of democratic capitalism, The End of History. Globalisation is about the erosion of national boundaries, of borders and nation states and the ability of capital to move across the globe at a moment's notice. The advent of new communications technology has meant that historical, political and economic trends have been accelerated. And it is opposition to these trends and the growth of globalisation's partner philosophy of neo-liberalism that is driving young people onto the streets.
The anti-globalisation movement is not a cohesive one. It brings together a wide variety of groups across all swathes of opinion. Religious organisations campaigning for debt relief stand shoulder to shoulder, however uncomfortably, with anarchists and socialists calling for an end to the capitalist system. This disparate coalition has come together out of a sense that what unites is far greater than what divides. Though different groups might concentrate on different aspects of globalisation, whether it be third world debt, the environment, union rights, sweatshops etc., they see an overall link between all these issues.
This link is provided by what the movement sees as an unholy trinity of organisations pushing the globalisation agenda, the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The WTO in particular comes in for severe criticism and it was at a meeting of the WTO that the anti-globalisation movement burst onto the scene.
The WTO meeting in Seattle at the start of December 1999 was a watershed moment. A movement up until then scarcely organised and existing mostly on the internet, brought a city to a standstill, disrupted a meeting of one of the world's most powerful and least accountable bodies and inspired activists across the globe. Tens of thousands of marchers took part in a series of demonstrations and peaceful protests. Violence also broke out and the `Battle of Seattle' raged for days, with pitched battles between protestors and police attracting the attention of the world's media.
Protestors claim that the WTO is merely a front for economic colonisation, initially by richer countries and increasingly by transnational corporations. It sounds like left wing conspiracy theories spinning out of control but a closer look at the WTO shows an inherent bias against the developing world. Under WTO regulations, developing countries are forced to open up their markets to free trade, a process which anti-globalisation activists claim is allowing transnational corporations to exploit and abuse these countries.
Supporters of the WTO argue that these measures are necessary to bring about free trade and that it stimulates economic growth. But these claims attract criticism from elements of the anti-globalisation movement, who say that the economic growth is all restricted to first world countries and corporations. A report by the OECD in 1994 predicted that Africa would lose out to the tune of $2.6 billion dollars over ten years.
Many of these countries are saddled with IMF loans that are crippling their economies. They are then forced by the IMF to cut spending on health and education, eliminate labour laws and environmental protection laws and allow transnational corporations unfettered access to their markets.
The IMF forces these countries to prioritise export production over the development of the local economy. This has led to widespread policies of shifting farming policy away from food production for local consumption to the more lucrative production of export crops for shipment to the developed world. With the elimination of tariffs, small local businesses find themselves going up against powerful multinationals without any protection from their own government and thousands go under.
In Ireland, the increasing dependence on multinational investment has always meant that the country's economic fortunes are dependent on the profits foreign corporations are making here as they are on Irish economic policy. The failure of the incumbent 26-County government and previous ones to meaningfully invest in local industry means we face into globalisation with a great deal at risk.
Next Week: The Anti-Globalisation Movement in Ireland
Some have called it the End of Geography, a mocking reference to Fukuyama's book on the triumph of democratic capitalism, The End of History. Globalisation is about the erosion of national boundaries, of borders and nation states and the ability of capital to move across the globe at a moment's notice. The advent of new communications technology has meant that historical, political and economic trends have been accelerated. And it is opposition to these trends and the growth of globalisation's partner philosophy of neo-liberalism that is driving young people onto the streets.
The anti-globalisation movement is not a cohesive one. It brings together a wide variety of groups across all swathes of opinion. Religious organisations campaigning for debt relief stand shoulder to shoulder, however uncomfortably, with anarchists and socialists calling for an end to the capitalist system. This disparate coalition has come together out of a sense that what unites is far greater than what divides. Though different groups might concentrate on different aspects of globalisation, whether it be third world debt, the environment, union rights, sweatshops etc., they see an overall link between all these issues.
This link is provided by what the movement sees as an unholy trinity of organisations pushing the globalisation agenda, the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The WTO in particular comes in for severe criticism and it was at a meeting of the WTO that the anti-globalisation movement burst onto the scene.
The WTO meeting in Seattle at the start of December 1999 was a watershed moment. A movement up until then scarcely organised and existing mostly on the internet, brought a city to a standstill, disrupted a meeting of one of the world's most powerful and least accountable bodies and inspired activists across the globe. Tens of thousands of marchers took part in a series of demonstrations and peaceful protests. Violence also broke out and the `Battle of Seattle' raged for days, with pitched battles between protestors and police attracting the attention of the world's media.
Protestors claim that the WTO is merely a front for economic colonisation, initially by richer countries and increasingly by transnational corporations. It sounds like left wing conspiracy theories spinning out of control but a closer look at the WTO shows an inherent bias against the developing world. Under WTO regulations, developing countries are forced to open up their markets to free trade, a process which anti-globalisation activists claim is allowing transnational corporations to exploit and abuse these countries.
Supporters of the WTO argue that these measures are necessary to bring about free trade and that it stimulates economic growth. But these claims attract criticism from elements of the anti-globalisation movement, who say that the economic growth is all restricted to first world countries and corporations. A report by the OECD in 1994 predicted that Africa would lose out to the tune of $2.6 billion dollars over ten years.
Many of these countries are saddled with IMF loans that are crippling their economies. They are then forced by the IMF to cut spending on health and education, eliminate labour laws and environmental protection laws and allow transnational corporations unfettered access to their markets.
The IMF forces these countries to prioritise export production over the development of the local economy. This has led to widespread policies of shifting farming policy away from food production for local consumption to the more lucrative production of export crops for shipment to the developed world. With the elimination of tariffs, small local businesses find themselves going up against powerful multinationals without any protection from their own government and thousands go under.
In Ireland, the increasing dependence on multinational investment has always meant that the country's economic fortunes are dependent on the profits foreign corporations are making here as they are on Irish economic policy. The failure of the incumbent 26-County government and previous ones to meaningfully invest in local industry means we face into globalisation with a great deal at risk.
Next Week: The Anti-Globalisation Movement in Ireland