A Southern Critique of Globalization by People in the wake of September 11th

“The Globalization by People strategy presupposes asking those who control the largest portion of power in the world to accept sharing it with the most vulnerable nations. It sounds a little odd, frankly”.

By Mónica Zalaquett

12. October 2001

This presentation was made at the Plan Puebla-Panamá forum in Nicaragua Oct. 12th 2001 - a workshop on regional development organised by MS Central America and two local organizations.

I would like to thank the Humboldt Center and MS for the opportunity to speak on this interesting proposal to democratize globalization, a proposal which after the events of September 11 of this year acquires great relevance, not only as a strategy through which to work for greater equity in the world, but also as a means to contribute to the development of international conditions in which peace prevails.

To ponder the issue of globalization by extracting a set of opportunities from a complex and changing reality that to many countries is threatening, would have seemed more an act of benevolent creativity before the terrorist attacks upon New York and Washington. But now, in the light of the urgent need to find new approaches to world relations, proposals such as this one represent an effective contribution to lessen the impact of the great inequalities and paradoxes in the world, and avoid that these culminate in permanent cycles of violence and terror.

"It is evident that the aggressive actions in Afghanistan and those that may yet occur in other Arab nations are the beginning of a type of protracted and unpredictable war that will affect the entire world."

It is evident that the aggressive actions in Afghanistan and those that may yet occur in other Arab nations are the beginning of a type of protracted and unpredictable war that will affect the entire world. A war that has already drastically changed the daily life of US citizens by installing fear as a constant and disseminating among many nations a wave of prejudices, stereotypes and discriminations toward those who do not share western values and beliefs.

"This war has undermined the very possibility of democratizing global relations... we are moving towards... a sort of authoritarian world axis, in which non-western people and nations will be under permanent surveillance, as will the poor nations and people of the West."

This war has undermined the very possibility of democratizing global relations. Freedom of movement, thought and communication, all of which characterize western democratic systems, are seriously threatened. Even the free market and capital flow will not be the same if the discretional nature of many transactions and the bank’s guarantee of privacy and confidentiality are done away with. We are, therefore, moving through a phase in which our way of life is more controlled and more closely watched, toward a sort of authoritarian world axis, in which non-western people and nations will be under permanent surveillance, as will the poor nations and people of the West.

This tendency reflects how threatened the developed world feels today by nations with less military and economic might, but whose people manifest their resistance to the western way of life by clinging to their religious and cultural traditions.

I recall when in Nicaragua the Sandinista Revolution attempted to transfer its ideas of change and progress to the countryside, ignoring traditional and religious beliefs, local modes of production and trading, and the backward features of the impoverished small farmers in the mountains. This led to strong resistance, not only because the campesino way of life was being disrespected, but also because it had been overlooked that development comes thorough social participation and cannot be imposed by government.

I also recall that the United States took advantage of these contradictions between the Sandinistas and the campesinos by promoting and supporting the counterrevolution, as it also did in another part of the world with the Talibans, whose fanaticism and retrograde ideas they exacerbated without considering the consequences it must now face.

The war had the most terrible consequences in Nicaragua, but it also led us to the conviction that no type of violence is fit to resolve the social, cultural or economic problems of nations, and that only dialogue, negotiation and understanding can lead to a stable peace.

This experience, as so many other events in the world, also makes me think that there can be no success in the war against terrorism unless the underlying causes that originate cruel and desperate actions such as those that occurred in Washington and New York are addressed. Because weapons cannot ensure a lasting peace in a seriously polarized world, in which globalization appears as the Americanization of culture, the defense of a profoundly unjust economic order and the imposition of transnational management upon local governments.

"Globalization appears as the Americanization of culture, the defense of a profoundly unjust economic order and the imposition of transnational management upon local governments."

If to this we add the ways in which joint military action has now been globalized, the process will clearly lead us to a form of world dictatorship by powerful nations, which will become the breeding ground for more violence as long as western culture, values and religion are considered hegemonic in a world that is, in fact, replete with diversities.

"The notion of democratizing the processes of globalization represents nothing less than a proposal for the survival of humanity."

It is precisely for this reason that at this point in time the notion of democratizing the processes of globalization represents nothing less than a proposal for the survival of humanity, insofar as it offers a true program by which to attend to the difficulties, requirements and urgent needs of nations and peoples to whom the present world order has denied fundamental rights.

We have here a set of serious and reasonable strategies to build a relation of greater equity in a critically unbalanced world. Upon accepting interdependence as a fact that obliges collective responsibility for the fate of humanity, the text abandons the idea of cooperation as an act of voluntary charity by the rich to help the poor and rather takes up the idea of corresponsibility and the obligatory nature of the struggle against underdevelopment, poverty and marginalization.

It appears to me to be an ethical proposal, but above all it is a sensible one, because we simply cannot continue as we are, the North and the South divided by an immense educational, cultural, technological and material gap. Thus the document suggests that tax mechanisms be established, that parliaments work to democratize access to resources and opportunities.

For countries such as ours, this is extremely important, as we have abandoned all hope of development and concentrate instead on the search for survival, or at least a better management of poverty. It would appear that the developed world, through the multilateral financial institutions, is telling us: you can only aspire to subsistence, and this insofar as you apply our economic guidelines, pay the interest on your debts and put a halt to emigration to our cities.

We in Nicaragua consider ourselves as one of many marginalized countries, which in keeping with its status as a mendicant nation, must resign itself to accepting leftover money, clothes, vehicles and technology from developed nations. We live from charity, and in a sense from the surplus waste generated by the rich nations. But this does not imply we should renounce the possibilities of real economic growth, of obtaining technology and an education that allows us to be more competitive and to participate in world trade under fairer conditions. We must never give up on the possibility of a more decent life for our population.

The "lumpenization" of our nations is a mirror image at world level of the sight of rings of slums surrounding the worlds’ megacities. In much the same way as crime becomes a way of life in marginal neighborhoods, corruption in our country propagates itself alongside the emergence of a clandestine economy, based on the production of drugs and drug-trafficking, the smuggling of emigrants and so many other illegal activities.

While gangs sow fear among the residents of poor neighborhoods, the world itself sees a proliferation of Mafias and private armies that kidnap and murder, haughtily ignoring any human rights. In such a setting it is only logical that democracies are weakened and that extremist groups, whose members prefer to die and enjoy in paradise what seems unreachable on this earth of inequalities, gather strength and notoriety.

"Is it possible that the powerful will suddenly accept the idea of balancing the structures of global power?"

For all these reasons it is of transcendental importance that we have before us a proposal to lay emphasis upon a different type of international cooperation, one based on globally binding rules and norms. But we must ask: is it possible that the powerful will suddenly accept the idea of balancing the structures of global power? Will they really show an interest in building civil, legal, political and democratic institutions capable of cushioning the negative consequences of globalization?

I do not know what type of mechanisms and means would be needed to democratize international institutions, but I fear that the good will alone of a few advanced nations is not enough. For example, the creation of a world parliament or the installation of leadership at the World Trade Organization that allows access by civil society in our nations to information regarding international negotiations, presuppose a virtually complete change in the present paradigm of supremacy of the few and the adoption of a cooperative spirit that up until now has seemed well out of reach.

Similarly, the proposal to make the causes of unequal distribution of resources between the rich and the poor more visible by means of an international dialogue seems wonderful, but again, would imply a sea change, almost a religious conversion of the powerful, who thus far have preferred to ignore said causes.

My doubts in no way signify a questioning of the validity of these proposals, but rather are meant to stress certain questions regarding the mechanisms and means by which to promote them. Because a democratic reform from a global perspective, taking into account the challenges and local experiences, would truly require a change in the mentality of governments such as that of the United States, or of the nations that make up the G-8.

"The Globalization by People strategy presupposes asking those who control the largest portion of power in the world to accept sharing it with the most vulnerable nations. It sounds a little odd, frankly."

As it is now put forth, the Globalization by People strategy presupposes asking those who control the largest portion of power in the world to accept sharing it with the most vulnerable nations. It sounds a little odd, frankly, in a world that functions according to a logic of patriarchal authoritarianism and not that of multinational solidarity.

The same goes for the proposal to establish an international system of justice based on a minimum set of global rules, a system capable of dealing with all sorts of international, ecological or economic offenses, as well as war crimes. Were such a system to be brought into existence, would it be possible to actually punish the government of the United States for having refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty? Or for refusing to sign the demining treaties, which enjoyed such broad support in the various international fora?

The document points out that global rights and obligations, including economic, social, and cultural rights, as well as the right to food, health, shelter and work, can be introduced by means of positive incentives, collective sanctions and an effective judicial authority. But would these incentives be capable of making developed nations understand that two billion people cannot continue living on less than two dollars a day?

"Is it possible to persuade the powerful in the world to accept the need to achieve greater equality and solidarity at global level?"

Put otherwise: Is it possible to persuade the powerful in the world to accept the need to achieve greater equality and solidarity at global level? Can or will they stop thinking of assistance for development as an act of charity and to understand it as an obligation as elemental as that of the citizen who pays taxes, as an attitude that is not so much civic as responsible at world level?

If citizens resist paying taxes, and I doubt they would pay except for the threat of punishment if they don't, how can we get the governments of the world to do so? How can we oblige them to accept, for example, the Tobin tax on securities transactions, or a tax on the fuel used by airplanes, or on emissions of carbon dioxide?

"The reality is that institutions such as the World Trade Organization are far from considering the introduction of poverty relief and sustainable development into their agreements."

If the answer is that there will be laws and a world parliament, then we must ask: Would this not signify the need for a world police force? At present the reality is that institutions such as the World Trade Organization are far from considering the introduction of poverty relief and sustainable development into their agreements, or of abandoning the interest the rich have in taking a humanitarian approach to international relations.

Likewise, the World Bank or the International Monetary Front by no means place global equality as a top priority. This would be the equivalent of asking them to renew, at world level, the communist hopes of Karl Marx, or that they become the new standard bearers of transnational socialism.

"It is difficult to aspire to this sort of world socialism when the very logic of capitalism and the free market are being questioned by globalization."

I base my skepticism on the fact that it is difficult to aspire to this sort of world socialism when the very logic of capitalism and the free market are being questioned by globalization. As Bruce R. Scott writes in his article "The Great Dividing Line in the Global Village", published in the Journal of Foreign Affairs, for the poor countries to develop they should be permitted to do what today’s rich countries did when they became advanced, which is to have access to commodities markets and labor under advantageous conditions.

The author goes on to explain that modernization and economic development inevitably threaten the present distribution of power and income, which is why powerful elites continue to defend an unjust order, although this may mean that society as a whole continues to fall behind. Scott adds: "More than a constitution, universal suffrage and periodic elections are needed to achieve responsible government and the rule of law. It could well be that the only thing that peacefully conducts corrupt and repressive governments to become accountable is the right to leave, that is to say, emigration."

This is an approach that runs counter to the present-day obstacles to migration. Scott points out that Europe’s economic take-off in the second half of the nineteenth century was assisted by the emigration of 60 million persons to the United States, Argentina, Brazil and Australia, but that in today’s world the North erects numerous hindrances to the flow of the workforce from the South to the world’s great cities.

"We should begin by demanding that the same rules that were valid for capitalist development in the North be applied to the South."

I think, then, that along with demanding a more just distribution of the world’s wealth, we should begin by demanding that the same rules that were valid for capitalist development in the North be applied to the South, the same liberties, the same protection they provide their agricultural products and the same rights in the global trade system.

Still, none of this seems feasible to me by appealing only to the humanism or spirit of survival vis-à-vis environmental problems. Samuel Huntington, in his famous article "Clash of Civilizations?", writes that "the West uses international institutions, military might and economic resources to conduct the world according to ways that allow it maintain its predominance, protect its interests and promote its political and economic values."

This statement casts doubts upon Huntington’s own recommendations, when he prudently calls upon the West to learn to coexist among different civilizations. But at the same time it undoubtedly confirms that the powerful, through their military actions in the Middle East, have lighted a torch that is going to be difficult to extinguish.

The text on "Globalization by People", in its chapter on Peace and Reconciliation, proposes that we carefully analyze the specific historical circumstances of a conflict before embarking upon intervention, but these circumstances do not appear to have been taken into account as regards current events. Quite to the contrary, things are becoming more complicated with each passing day, and a domino reaction in this worldwide conflict seems inevitable.

Now, in a situation of full-fledged war, is it realistic to propose the need for an international system capable of ensuring peace, security and stability in the world? Can we, amidst this conflict, achieve the prevalence of negotiation, mediation, peaceful methods and support for long-term development over the use of force?

"Now, in a situation of full-fledged war, is it realistic to propose the need for an international system capable of ensuring peace, security and stability in the world? Frankly, I don’t think so."

Frankly, I don’t think so. The situation we are experiencing today is living proof of how difficult it is to make this strategy a reality. I believe we should begin by asking ourselves what is really at the bottom of these issues, of these ideas that nurture the culture of violence and the authoritarian and undemocratic system that governs humanity.

For it is only by reaching the full conviction, at national and international levels, that violence expresses nothing more than weakness and impotence, that the abuse of power brings with it not fortune but disaster, that hegemonies favor no one, and that economic inequality will end up by generating poverty for all, that it may be possible to abandon violent methods and adopt communication, mediation and the search for understanding as the only effective means to achieve peace and equity.

I believe we should develop a different strain of thought, one that questions the very foundations of the patriarchal philosophy that undergirds this world domination scheme, based on the predominance of the powerful over the weak, and the idea that the well-being of the few depends upon the existence of great inequalities.

"We should develop a different strain of thought, one that questions the very foundations of the patriarchal philosophy that undergirds this world domination scheme, based on the predominance of the powerful over the weak, and the idea that the well-being of the few depends upon the existence of great inequalities."

It should be a strain of thought in which the world is finally understood as a system in which the fate of one is linked to that of all others, a system with such a degree of connection and interdependence, that the misfortunes, problems and needs of the impoverished world must by their very logic have repercussions in all its other parts.