Sept. 17, 2002
Look What’s Happ’nen on the Street
A Look at the Globalization Protest Movement Today
By John
Forrer
Imagine this news story in the Sept. 30, 2002,
Washington Post:
An estimated 100,000 anti-globalization protesters
gathered in Washington, DC, to protest the annual IMF/World Bank meetings.
Calls were made for debt forgiveness for developing economies, greater
global environmental protection, and donor development policies that
do more to aid the world’s very poorest people. Protesters marched,
chanted, and encircled the IMF building, culminating in a group séance
where an attempt was made to levitate the IMF building and all of
the delegates meeting inside.
Not! Or at least not likely.
The protest marches that were so prominent at Seattle, Genoa, and earlier
IMF/WB meetings in Washington appear to have lost some steam. Meetings
of the G-7, the WTO, and other international organizations continue
to draw protesters, but more modest in number, and often fueled by local
issues (such as land reform in South Africa at the recent UN Summit
in Johannesburg) more than “globalization” per se. Frustrations
with the outcome of the recent UN summit may fire-up a few more folk
than usual to come out and protest the upcoming IMF/WB meeting. But
what has happened to all the sound and the fury of the anti-globalization
protests (or in fairness, the self-dubbed “global justice movement”)?
Some have claimed the “anti-globalization” protesters were
always more froth than drink: when you’ve been to one protest march
you’ve been to them all. Calls for repeated protests receive a
been-there-done-that response and reflects the “radical chic”
underbelly of the protest movement. Issues of globalization really do
not interest people outside a small circle of friends because there
is, in fact, little to protest.
Others counter that the earlier protests have accomplished their goal
of drawing attention to the critical issues of globalization. The protests
covered by CNN and others have made the otherwise esoteric idea of globalization
a topic discussed around dinner. Now is the time for the movement’s
energy to be channeled into constructive reform efforts and the strengthening
of civil societies around the world. A powerful countervail is needed
to the heretofore unhindered path plowed by transnational corporations
and international organizations, representing the interests of the rich,
powerful, and enfranchised.
No doubt there is some truth in both interpretations. The issues raised
by globalization are diverse and complex. Much is claimed for globalization,
invoking both fawning endorsements and vitriolic attacks. Is globalization
no more than a grab bag of issues du jour, packaged neatly, but the
whole being less than the sum of its parts? Or is globalization the
recognition of a deep integration of world markets, trade, governments,
corporations, ideas, technology, people, diseases, media, and investments
— all with historical precedence, but perhaps reaching a critical
mass here and now — that changes, or should change, everything
we do?
There is no easy answer. But debate over the winners and losers of globalization
and the extent to which it creates or destroys what is valued is real,
profound and it is here to stay. What is it about globalization that
has made it such a flash point of contention and makes it seem so imperative
to students? Is it the explosion of media and information accessible
via the Internet and TV that are shaping people’s awareness of
a larger, more diverse state-of-the-world we occupy? There is nothing
new about the fact that the majority of the world’s population
lead destitute and insecure lives — and ever more so for children
and women. Yet these and other problems associated with globalization
now seem closer where they were once remote, and personal where they
were once anonymous. Perhaps it’s the relative affluence of the
’90s in the US and good prospects for many college-age students
that makes the stark juxtaposition of our collective well-being in the
US seem so discordant — even unconscionable — with the desperate
lives that appear to be perpetuated, not rescued, by globalization.
Kofi Annan, secretary general of the United Nations, argued at the recently
completed World Summit for Sustainable Development 2002 held in Johannesburg,
South Africa, that we are all at a profound juncture in history. Dissatisfaction
with the rich-poor divide, and the perception that globalization will
continue to widen this breach, is stoking a growing anger and antagonism
against the developed countries in general, and the US in particular.
Fair or not, the US is indicted for being complicit in the tragic lives
led by billions due to our failure to try to do more to help them.
Some call this envy. Some call it “scapegoating.” Some call
it an omen. But what is to be done remains far less clear. Is there
a future globalization scenario where a reasonable accommodation is
reached about how markets, governments, and societies are best organized
to the mutual benefit of all the world’s people and nations? Or
are we headed down a darker trail of perpetual combat and conflict over
the winners and losers of globalization and permanent polarization between
the haves and have-nots?
On the side of the optimists, globalization is seeping deeply into the
intellectual fabric of international organizations, governments, corporations,
universities, and NGOs. Studying globalization and developing actions
in response has become the preoccupation of an army of executives, analysts,
and scholars within these entities. Conferences, reports, and academic
articles on globalization are proliferating exponentially. Globalization
opens up new ways of understanding what is happening to the economic,
political, social, and cultural order around the world and is compelling
us to rethink what is going on and what we can do about it. It can refresh
tired policy debates that have regressed into predictable polemics where
media sound bites are valued over substance. Globalization has become
the framing paradigm for our time.
For the pessimists, so much of the rhetoric raised and policies promoted
as a response to globalization are treadworn, inflammatory, and “old
school.” Casting the debate in terms of “pro-” or “anti-”
globalization is even more counterproductive than it is silly. The world
is changing more rapidly than the conventional strategies, policy approaches,
and models can contain. Rejoinders to the protests against the rich-poor
divide and environmental degradation are answered too often by packaged
pronouncements, tethered to a world view that sounds self-serving, remote,
and cynical — even when they are offered with sincerest conviction.
Awareness of globalization is growing and the popular discourse on the
topic — particularly on the Internet — is exploding. But there
is little nourishment to be taken from it all.
As the dominant world power, the US could assume the leadership in promoting
new policies and programs that will steer the world on a path of progress
and betterment for all. Some argue that that is just what we are trying
to do. But the rest of the world will not follow if we lecture about
the virtues of free markets but impose our own trade tariffs and quotas;
if we argue for greater privatization but find rampant fraud in our
largest corporations; and, if we call for democratic rule and pluralism
but support authoritarian regimes at our convenience.
The anti-American boos and catcalls that greeted no less than US Secretary
of State Colin Powell at the just finished World Summit and his advocacy
of current US globalization policies is testimony that a profound gap
exists between perceptions about what we stand for, how we convey it
to the rest of the world, and what we do.
Waning enthusiasm for large protests against the injustices that are
associated with globalization may reflect a recognition that the issues
are too complex and important to be grappled with by sloganeering placards
and people dressed up like turtles.
Why aren’t we making speeches where international audiences cheer
and not hoot? Where is the language that inspires people to embrace
US globalization policies because they believe it is the best thing
to do for themselves and their children? Where are the US voices that
can explain in everyday language our approaches to globalization and
how they benefit not only people on the other side of the world, but
at home as well. Where is the vision for a future of globalization that
draws applause at the local Rotary Club and at the UN?
Perhaps it is up to the future generation of leaders, now studying globalization
at GW and elsewhere, to meet this challenge. The topic deserves paradigms,
language, and discourse that can describe globalization to people, how
it affects their everyday lives, and convince them that there are policies
that could reform globalization in a way that is fair and efficacious.
We’re listening.
John Forrer is the director of The GW Center for the Study of Globalization.
Send feedback to: bygeorge@gwu.edu
