can we make "globalization" more just?

this is the slightly adaptet version of a paper I wrote a couple of months ago. I think it provides some important points of discussion. of course, as always, comments are more than welcome.

„If the citizens don’t have any other options to react, then you have to take over responsibility and go beyond legality. Conscience is more important then obedience before the law.” José Bové

This blog entry will take focus on the unbalanced aspects of globalization and how its critics can help to make globalization more just by restructuring their resistance away from an unclear and somewhat confusing protest towards an organized and determined way of calling attention to the disadvantages of today’s globalization.

The term “globalization” is elusive and at the same time the initial point of various controversies. The “globe” in globalization implies that we are facing a mundane development. It does not suppose that there actually IS a “world system” but it does suppose that there is the possibility that this movement leads to a “world state” with its own “world culture”. However, first and foremost one thinks of globalization as the globalization of markets – and with it, the globalization of cultural and social values and behaviour patterns is bound to occur. The creations of international markets, legal systems, actors (or “players”), norms and standards have one thing in common: they exceed national borders. Anthony Giddens defines globalization as an increase of interdependences all over the world.

“Globalization can thus be defined as the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa.” (Giddens in Held and McGrew 2004, 60)

Furthermore Giddens argues that even though local happenings may have had impact on other parts of the world in earlier times, today’s interdependences have a whole new quality. Even though globalization is seen as the successor of ethnocentrism, it seems to be the western, industrialized world that influences its development the most. Terms like “Westernization” or “McDonaldization” are sometimes used as synonyms for globalization (see Jan Art Scholte in Held and McGrew 2004, 85). Indeed, as Joseph Nye points out, the three main hubs of globalization are the USA, Europe and Japan. Those regions (with US hegemony) build the centre of economic, military, social and environmental trends (Joseph S. Nye Jr. in Held and Mc Grew 2004, 112-15). Presumably, China may be the nation to break up this triumvirate.

Additionally, the discussions about globalization are discussions about a new world order; a world order that remains very confusing. Old national regulations seem to be out-dated and inefficient to face increasing deterritorialization (think of the resettlements of corporations and/or unemployment) - this leads to the demand of a new system of ordering.

I am arguing that the political neo-liberal right of wealthy western industrialized countries is shaping this new system of ordering by influencing the way globalization goes - and it does so with hardly any consideration towards the weak. An African Proverb says that when two elephants are fighting, it is the grass that suffers. As the story goes, if two elephants are making love, it is also the grass that gets trampled .

Examples that verify this strong picture could be trade liberalization policies, which are pushed through on behalf of developing countries. One can blame the establishment of different institutions after WWII (like the GATT/WTO, the IMF, the World Bank) for this course of action. More evidence is provided when, like in the early 1980´s, politicians like Britain’s Margaret Thatcher proclaim that there is no alternative to neo-liberal policies. This narrow-minded sight might fall back on its creators – when side effects of globalization (like the destruction of the environment or the increasing hatred of those who are neglected) will become more and more obvious. Of course, the term “neo-liberal” does not automatically mean “unequal”. Yet, history shows that those who carry neo-liberal policies into effect could need some boost when it comes to the proper treatment of unprivileged.

The French refer to people who are critical towards globalization as “altermondialistes”. This term includes both the earth and the alternative. Therefore I consider it more appropriate than the term “anti-globalist” since this is a somewhat radical, utopian conception for a movement that is partly deeply rooted in the capitalist system of western industrialized countries. “Another world is possible” is a common alter-globalist slogan, among others used at the first World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil.

Nowadays the alter-globalization movement experiences presentable reception. A vast number of non-profit organizations have called to speak up against globalization – sometimes without giving answers to what should be “fought” exactly and why. The great diversity within the alter-globalization movement is basically positive but it leads to stagnant decision-making and negotiation processes. It seems like everybody walks under the umbrella of “alter-globalization” – but occasionally it’s a silly walk, back and forth, left and right. It’s difficult enough not to fall over one’s own accord although it would be so important to gain pace in order to improve the globalized world according to alter-globalist´s ideals. And gaining pace is what the “enemy” does. Tight organization and treaties that tie it’s signers to certain conditions enable institutions like the WTO to move on while it’s opponents have a hard time to channel their disfavour to constructive paths.
An apposite example is the “Battle of Seattle”, the huge demonstration of anti-globalists, alter-globalists and anarchists against the WTO summit in the Washington state metropolis. Although “[m]ost commentators agree that both the WTO and Washington state officials severely underestimated both the quantitative strength and organizational skill of the protesters” (Steger, 2005. 129), the violent undertone of the demonstrations may circumvent legitimization of serious negotiations for the future. Brute strength of some of its followers is one of the problems alter-globalists have to deal with. Another one is the in various cases anti Semitic undertone of leftist alter-globalists and the in many cases sheer nationalistic and racist way of campaigning on the right. “White supremacist leader Louis Beam praised the demonstrators, emphasizing that the >police state goons< st="on">Seattle were paid by the international capital to protect >the slimy corporate interests of free trade at the expense of free people.>” (Steger, 2005. 129). Basically there is nothing wrong with trying to combine different points of view. But first, racism is not just “a different point of view” it is a violation of human rights. Second, chances are that inconsistencies like this are leading to undifferentiated mass media coverage and to a diffuse disaffection of neutral spectators. This subverts alter-globalists legitimization to take over a main role in the debate of changing globalization.

There is a need for a powerful and efficient organization that is able to accumulate and channel the concerns of alter-globalists so they can actually find their way to the agenda setters.

How can such an organization look like?

It might be surprising that I recommend an institution that has a structure similar to that of the WTO. The World Trade Organization is a member driven organization. To be allowed to apply, one has to be a nation state. According to its website, the WTO now has 149 members. As a matter of fact, the number of alter-globalist groups is much higher than that and it is clear that there has to be a restriction to a certain number of members in order to remain powerful. A possible solution for this problem may be the possibility for each state to send one delegation to the yet fictitious institution. This delegation is not linked to the government and the number of delegates is related to the population. Similar mechanisms for a population-based participation are seen at the European Parliament for example. The advantages of this allocation-method are indicatory: First it is set against existing power structures (for example the economic domination of western industrialized countries) and therefore helps aggrieved countries with large populations to increase their participation in the alter-globalist process. From experience, many of those countries are to be found both on the Latin American and on the African continent. Second, taking the number of citizens as an indicator is an incorruptible and comprehensible approach. Furthermore, each delegation should have various committees to be able to cope with a heavy workload. Three problems are yet unsolved: The composition of each delegation (which organizations and groups are allowed to send advocates), its performance requirements (which policies should be pursued once the delegation is built-up) and the financing.

The selection procedure for the delegates may differ from state to state and considering the great diversity that exists, it is probably a problematic procedure. Since by today the national movements are still the ones most influential, it is possible that the different organizations benefit from structures that are already built on the national level. In the early stage it is predictable that there are a notable number of organizations not included in the process. The election-methods can be chosen by each state and the disadvantage of not being able to participate in the first place does not mean that these organizations or individuals are not allowed to bring their concerns and ideas into the debate. Once the delegation is arranged it is sent to the permanent Alter Globalists Organization’s (AGO) headquarters, based in any city. There, the real process of policy making starts. At first, delegations have to sign a treaty that makes them stick to the rules. It might be a crucial point for alter-globalists to finally step into this bureaucratic system. As in the WTO, those summits can take place every two years and different fields of activity are to be offered. The delegations split up and each delegate chooses the field he thinks he is able to represent the most (for example environmental concerns, concerns about working conditions [“sweatshops”], etc.) The number of committees might vary from summit to summit and each committee has to agree on just one agenda to be followed for each summit. Thinking of the vast number of possible topics it is important to set priorities. I suggest that for the topic’s electoral process simple majority should be used. If the topic is chosen it is the delegate’s duty to address the main problems and to agree on a policy that could solve those problems. With these policies, delegates return to their home alter-globalist organizations, requiring them to assemble those policies.

According to this theory it is possible to put pressure on the government without weakening oneself because of contrary lines of action. Being able to present a clear policy that needs to be followed makes it more convenient to convince citizens of the ideas – and once support increases it will be impossible for governments and corporations to ignore this development. Furthermore the significance of influence is likely to expand from the regional and national level to the continental and even international level. The smaller the group and the lower the level, the more radical seems to be the protest. José Bové and his French organization “Confederation Paysanne” show, that protest with extraordinary means is important up to a certain point. Then, communication of interests has to reach a diplomatic quality that makes it possible to negotiate.

To finance this institution, fundraising will be inevitable. As the example of Greenpeace shows, it is possible to run a large apparatus. Pure idealists might even argue that once there is a tax on all trade of currency (“Tobin tax”; see Robert E. Goodin, 2003) it would be appropriate to spend some of this money on an Alter Globalist Organization.

It is going to be a long and rocky road until an organization like the one described above really is able to exist and there might lurk some unforeseeable problems. And, gatherings and discussion-forums like the World Social Forum are not going to be replaced; they have their significance in the alter-globalist movement. However, it is important to start building the institutional framework of an Alter Globalist Organization for it may help to avert stagnation and it may help to bring well structured concepts of how the globalized world should look like into play.

the graphic shows the wto-structures

books used: held and mcgrew; steger; goodin. if you are interested in the detailed bibliography, feel free to contact me.