Subject: "Globalization" and Its Malcontents
From: "Norman Solomon" 
Date: 20 Feb 2003 11:16:42 -0600

"GLOBALIZATION" AND ITS MALCONTENTS

By Norman Solomon     /     Creators Syndicate

     One of the big media buzzwords to emerge in recent years is
"globalization." By now, we're likely to know what it means. That's
unfortunate -- because at this point the word is so ambiguous that it
doesn't really mean much of anything.

     News outlets have reported that key international pacts like NAFTA
and the World Trade Organization gained U.S. approval during the 1990s
because most politicians in Washington favor "globalization." According
to conventional media wisdom, those globalizers want to promote
unfettered communication and joint endeavors across national boundaries.

     Well, not quite. These days, at the White House and on Capitol Hill,
the same boosters of "globalization" are upset about certain types of
global action -- such as the current grassroots movement against a war on
Iraq.

     For the most part, the same elected officials and media commentators
who have applauded money-driven globalization are now appalled by the
sight of anti-war globalization. The recent spectacle of millions of
people demonstrating against war on the same day around the world was
enough to cause apoplexy at the White House.

     That's consistent with a recurring pattern: "Pro-globalization"
forces are unhappy to see the globalizing of solidarity for labor rights,
economic justice, the environment and alternatives to war.

     A similar contradiction belies the media image of
"anti-globalization" activists as foes of internationalism who want to
rigidify national boundaries, reinforce isolation and prevent worldwide
interactions. On the contrary, advocates for human rights, environmental
protection and peace -- while largely opposing global superstructures
like NAFTA and the WTO -- have been busily creating ways to work with
like-minded people all over the planet.

     The form of "globalization" deemed worthy of the name by media is
corporate globalization, which gives massive capital even more momentum
to flatten borders and run roughshod over national laws. Deluging every
country with Nikes, Burger Kings and ATMs is presumptively indicative of
progress, no matter how bad the working conditions, how unhealthy the
products or how unjust the economic consequences. Meanwhile, fans of
"globalization" routinely contend that protection of labor rights or the
environment amounts to unfair restraint of trade, retrograde
protectionism and antiquated resistance to "reforms."

     By itself, "globalization" is much too simplistic a word to tell us
anything. The term is so murky that we may need to discard it, or at
least develop some new phrases to bring realities into focus.

     Today, the war-crazed Bush administration and the bipartisan
majority of enablers in Congress are fervent proponents of what might be
called "isolationist intervention." Sure, the present-day American
leaders proclaim their global vision and declare that they want to engage
with the world, but on their own terms -- with the U.S. government
reserving the right to determine its policies in isolation from any
nation that fails to offer subservient support. With hefty corporate
backing, they insist that the United States has the right to intervene
militarily overseas. Why? Because they say so.

     The gist of this approach to "globalization" was well expressed by
the glib pundit Thomas Friedman, whose 1999 book "The Lexus and the Olive
Tree" lauded the tandem roles of corporate capitalism and American
militarism. "The hidden hand of the market will never work without a
hidden fist," he wrote. "McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell
Douglas, the designer of the U.S. Air Force F-15. And the hidden fist
that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies to flourish
is called the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps."

     This veiled hand-and-fist stance is being actively rejected by
millions of people marching through cities in many parts of the world.
And the leaders of numerous countries are giving voice to that rejection.
Speaking to the U.N. Security Council a few days ago, Malaysia's prime
minister Mahathir Mohamed -- the incoming chair of the Non-Aligned
Movement -- combined realism with idealism. "We have no military or
financial strength," he said, "but we can join the world movement to
oppose war on moral grounds."

     The globalization of that movement is something to behold. And
nurture.

_________________________________________

"Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You," by Norman Solomon and
Reese Erlich, has just been published as a paperback original by Context
Books. For the prologue to the book and other information, go to:
http://www.contextbooks.com/newF.html

 

--- WtrGate v0.93.p9 Unreg